JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The top noted second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiff challenging the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below. 2. The brief facts of the top noted second appeal are as under: The case of the appellant/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that defendant Nos.1 and 2 are his brothers. Defendant Nos.4 to 6 are sisters. The appellant/plaintiff specifically averred in the plaint that his father namely, Ganapati Narayan Bhat was manager of their joint family and he was looking after the suit schedule properties since 1973. It is specifically averred that he separated from the family in the year 1973 and in the said partition, he was allotted his share. Further, he would specifically averred in the plaint that his father G.N.Bhat and present defendant Nos.1 and 2 continued to reside jointly. The appellant/ plaintiff has filed the present suit questioning the alleged Will executed by G.N.Bhat in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 insofar as item No.1 property is concerned. The case of the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.28/1996 is that the Will dated 28.10.1985 is concocted Will. The appellant/plaintiff has averred that his father G.N.Bhat had no intention to execute a Will in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. It is the specific case of appellant/plaintiff that his father had equal love and affection towards his children. 3. The appellant/plaintiff has also alternatively challenged the validity of the Will by contending that the same is hit by Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 4. On receipt of summons, the respondents/ defendants have contested the proceedings. The respondent has stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. 5. Based on the rival contentions, the Trial Court has formulated the following issues : 6. The appellant/plaintiff in support of his contention examined himself as PW.1 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P.1 to P.26. The respondents/defendants in support of their contention examined GPA holder as DW.1 and one attesting witness as DW2. 7. The Trial Court having examined rival contentions, pleadings and oral and documentary evidence on record has answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and issue Nos.2 to 6 and 10 were answered in the negative and issue Nos.7 to 9 were answered in affirmative. 8. 7. The Trial Court having examined rival contentions, pleadings and oral and documentary evidence on record has answered issue No.1 partly in the affirmative and issue Nos.2 to 6 and 10 were answered in the negative and issue Nos.7 to 9 were answered in affirmative. 8. The Trial Court on assessing the oral and documentary evidence has recorded a categorical finding that that Item No.1 and 5 properties are the properties of deceased Ganapati Narayan Bhat. While examining issue No.2, the Trial Court having meticulously examined the material on record has recorded the finding that the appellant/plaintiff took his share during lifetime of his father and accordingly he was allotted ancestral properties under a registered partition dated 01.05.1973. 9. The Trial Court has also recorded a finding that after appellant/plaintiff separated himself, the father and the present defendant Nos.1 and 2 continued to live jointly. The Trial Court having examined the subsequent registered partition dated 20.11.1981 has recorded a finding that, in the year 1981 partition, Ganapati Narayan Bhat was allotted Item No.1 of the properties. While examining Ex.P.4, the Trial Court has also taken note of the material fact that insofar as Item No.1 is concerned, which is admittedly a tenanted property, the father and his two sons i.e., defendant No.1 and 2 were jointly cultivating and all three had jointly applied for grant of occupancy rights. 10. By examining Ex.P.4, the Trial Court has negatived the contention of appellant/plaintiff that the Will is hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The Trial Court by relying on Ex.P.4 has recorded a finding that since defendant No.1 was jointly cultivating the tenanted land and since bequeath is by father in favour of son who was also jointly cultivating, the provisions of Section 61 would not be applicable. 11. The Trial Court was of the view that bequeath made by father in favour of his son i.e., defendant No.1 would not amount an assignment since bequeath is within the family. 12. The Trial Court while examining the validity of execution of will has meticulously examined the crossexamination of appellant who is examined as PW.1. There is a clinching evidence on record indicating that it is the 1st defendant who has taken care of his father as well as mother. It has also come in the evidence that the medical expenses was borne by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. There is a clinching evidence on record indicating that it is the 1st defendant who has taken care of his father as well as mother. It has also come in the evidence that the medical expenses was borne by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. It has also come in evidence that even funeral expense was borne by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 13. The Trial Court taking note of the this clinching evidence has recorded a categorical finding that due execution of Will by Ganapati Narayan Bhat in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is proved. The Trial Court has also taken note of categorical admission given by the appellant/plaintiff that he was not in good terms with his father and this compelled him to insist for a partition in the year 1973. The Trial Court having examined all these material aspects has dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff. 14. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record has concurred with the findings of the Court below. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation has also negatived the case of the appellant/plaintiff that since respondent No.1 has not entered into witness box, the Will has to fail. The First Appellate Court has not acceded to this arguments submitted by appellant/plaintiff. The First Appellate Court was of the view that respondent No.1/defendant No.1 is the beneficiary under the Will and hence his evidence is of no consequence. The Will has to be proved strictly in terms of provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 15. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 has examined DW2 as witness to the Will. DW.2 has with stood the test of cross-examination and nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW.2 to disbelieve the due execution of Will. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of entire evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff having separated from his father in the year 1973, cannot question the bequeath by the father in favour of his son i.e., defendant No.1 who has taken care at the fag end of his life. 16. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the will is proved in accordance with law and since the bequeath is in favour of a son, the provisions of Section 61 are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. 17. 16. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the will is proved in accordance with law and since the bequeath is in favour of a son, the provisions of Section 61 are not at all applicable to the present case on hand. 17. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents at length. I have meticulously examined the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The appellant/ plaintiff on account of his strained relationship with his father has taken his share in the joint family property and walked out of the family in the year 1973. Thereafter the father, namely Ganapati Narayan Bhat and his two sons i.e., defendant Nos.1 and 2 continued to reside jointly. In the year 1981, the father and defendant Nos.1 and 2 have effected partition, wherein Item No.1 was allotted to the father which is tenanted land. The father of appellant and defendant Nos.1 and 2 has bequeathed Item No.1 property in favour of respondent No.1/defendant No.1 under a Will dated 28.10.1985. Both the Courts have categorically held that due execution of Will is proved by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. 18. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the bequeath by Ganapati Narayan Bhat in favour of his son defendant No.1 would not amount to assignment and hence, there is no contravention of provisions of Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 19. Both the Courts have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the relationship of appellant/ plaintiff with his father was not cordial. Both the courts have taken judicial note of categorical admission given by the appellant/plaintiff who has admitted in unequivocal terms that since his relationship was not cordial, he separated from the family by taking his share under registered partition deed which was effected in 1973. 20. Both the Courts have taken judicial note of categorical admissions by appellant/plaintiff that it is respondent No.1/defendant No.1 who has taken care of his father and mother, even the medical expenses were born out by respondent No.1/defendant No.1. He also admits in unequivocal terms that even the funeral expenses were borne by the defendant No.1. 21. If this clinching evidence is taken note of, I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present second appeal. Accordingly appeal is devoid of merits, the same is dismissed.