JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful plaintiffs who have questioned the concurrent findings of the Courts below wherein the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed by both the Courts. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiffs and defendant are sisters. The present suit for partition is filed by plaintiffs claiming share in the properties left behind by their mother Jakkawwa. Plaintiffs claim that the properties were originally owned by their mother Jakkawwa who was the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, plaintiffs contend that their mother Jakawwa died intestate and they are entitled for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. 4. The defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and filed written statement and specifically contended that her mother Jakawwa has bequeathed the suit properties under Will dtd. 1/7/2011 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Plaintiffs to substantiate their claim have let in oral and documentary evidence while defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and examined the attesting witness to the Will as D.W.2. The copy of the registered Will was produced and marked as Ex.D6. The certified copy of deposition of Jakawwa recorded in the earlier partition suit filed by plaintiffs in O.S.No.1222004 was also produced and marked as Ex.D5. 6. The trial Court having examined the material on record answered Issue No.3 in the affirmative while issue Nos.1 and 2 were answered in the negative. While examining issue No.3 relating to Will the trial Court held that there are no valid grounds to discard the Will propounded by defendant. Referring to the evidence of D.W.2, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the defendant has succeeded in dispelling the suspicious circumstances and the evidence brought in by defendant clearly establishes the genuineness of the Will set up by the defendant. On these set of conclusions, the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit. 7. The Appellate Court while independently assessing the entire evidence on record has also given emphasis to the evidence of Jakawwa recorded in earlier suit bearing No.1222004. On these set of conclusions, the trial Court has proceeded to dismiss the suit. 7. The Appellate Court while independently assessing the entire evidence on record has also given emphasis to the evidence of Jakawwa recorded in earlier suit bearing No.1222004. Referring to the deposition, the appellate Court also held that the mother has clearly indicated that plaintiffs have not looked after her and it is only the defendant who has taken care and has further spent an amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00 towards medical expenses. She has further deposed that plaintiffs have not contributed towards medical expenses. Referring to this part of deposition and coupled with independent assessment of material on record relating to Will, the appellate Court was also of the view that defendant has succeeded in proving the Will. The Appellate Court was of the view that the evidence on record is quite clear and the witness has withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing material is elicited in cross-examination to discredit the witness to the Will. It is on these set of rerasons, the appellate Court was also not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree of the trial Court . These concurrent findings are under challenge by the plaintiff. 8. The material on record clearly demonstrates that the plaintiffs were at logger heads even during the life time of their mother Jakawwa. It is unfortunate that the daughters have dragged their mother by initiating a frivolous litigation during her life time. If the suit schedule properties were absolute properties of plaintiffs' mother Jakawwa, then they had no locus to file the partition suit against the mother. In the said suit, the mother has tendered evidence as she was examined as D.W.2 in the earlier suit and she has stated in unequivocal terms that it is the defendant who has been taking care and she has spent an amount of Rs.1, 50, 000.00. If these relevant materials are looked into, then this Court is of the view that the testator had strong reasons to bequeath the suit schedule properties by making a testamentary arrangement in favour of defendant who is also one of the daughter. 9. Both the Courts have concurrently held that due execution of Will is proved by defendant. These concurrent findings recorded on the Will cannot be revisited by reassessing the evidence on record. 9. Both the Courts have concurrently held that due execution of Will is proved by defendant. These concurrent findings recorded on the Will cannot be revisited by reassessing the evidence on record. Such a recourse is not permissible under Sec. 100 of CPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment and decree of both the Courts below in answering issue No.3 in the affirmative and recording a finding that the Will is proved by the defendant is based on clinching rebuttal evidence led by defendant. Therefore, I do not find any infirmities or illegalities in the concurrent judgments rendered by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.