JUDGMENT : 1. Smt. Neelavva filed a suit for cancellation of the Will dated 06.09.1994 executed by her father in favour of the defendant. She also sought for a consequential decree of injunction. 2. It was her case that her father Hanumantappa Aminappa Kamaladinni had died on 20.01.1999 and she being one of the legal heirs, had succeeded to the same and was entitled to enjoy the property as such. It was her case that a false Will had been set up by the defendant, which was said to have been executed by her father under which the suit land had been bequeathed to him. It was contended that since the said Will was a bogus Will, the same was required to be declared as illegal and that she be declared as the absolute owner of the suit property. 3. The suit was contested by the defendant. It was his specific contention that the deceased Hanumantappa had executed a registered Will on 06.09.1994 bequeathing the suit property in his favour and that at the time of execution of Will, he was both mentally and physically sound. It was his further defence that the plaintiff had, in fact, filed a suit in O.S.No.361/1996 against the testator Hanumantappa, his wife and his daughter and himself and this was dismissed on 23.07.1998 and thereafter the plaintiff's appeal in R.A.No.65/1998 had also been dismissed. 4. The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence, recorded a finding that the defendant had proved that the deceased Hanumantappa had in fact executed a registered Will on 06.09.1994 and the execution of the Will had been duly proved by the examination of the attestors to the Will. The trial Court took note of the fact that the plaintiff being the daughter had even during the lifetime of her father, filed a suit for partition and had suffered an adverse order and therefore, the present suit could not be entertained. The trial Court after recording the finding that the suit property was the self acquired property of deceased Hanumantappa and after recording a finding that he had executed a Will which had been duly proved, proceeded to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court after recording the finding that the suit property was the self acquired property of deceased Hanumantappa and after recording a finding that he had executed a Will which had been duly proved, proceeded to dismiss the suit. 5. The Appellate Court after re-appreciation of the entire evidence, confirmed the finding of fact that the suit property was the self acquired property of deceased Hanumantappa and that the registered Will that he had executed had also been duly proved and proceeded to dismiss the appeal. 6. Thus, both the Courts have concurrently recorded a finding that the suit property was the self acquired property of Hanumantappa and that he had executed a registered Will on 06.09.1994 and that the said Will had been proved in the manner prescribed in law. 7. In view of the above, in my opinion, this second appeal by the plaintiffs does not contain any question of law, much less, a substantial question of law and it is therefore dismissed.