IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2008 SHRI. SHAIKH CHIRAQUDDIN ... Appellant Versus SHRI. GOVIND BABLO GAONKAR AND 10 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 5th November, 2009 P.C.: This Second appeal takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Mapusa, by which Regular Civil Appeal No.109/2004 came to be rejected, as a consequence the decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff i.e the appellant herein came to be confirmed. 2. The Appellant/plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.06/1991, inter alias claiming the relief that necessary corrections may be ordered to be carried out by the competent authority to include the portion admeasuring 11049 sq.mtrs. from survey no.1/3 of village Ambeli in survey no.2/3 of village Ambeli as per Alvara no.199. The plaintiff also claimed the relief to restrain the defendant no.1, his agents, servants and family members from interfering with the suit garden. 3. The suit was filed on the basis of a sale deed in plaintiff's favour which was executed some time in the year 1962 in respect of land which was granted by the original Alvara No.199 to the predecessor of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original Alvara no.199 admeasures 40,873 sq.mtrs. The plaintiff had annexed the sale deed to the plaint alongwith the plan showing the suit property. It appears that on fresh survey being carried out two survey numbers being 2/3 and 1/3 were carved out andit is the case of the plaintiff that an area of 11049 sq.mts was wrongly included in survey no.1/3 when in fact, it should have been in survey no.2/3. Both the Court below, on the basis of the evidence that was on record have concurrently held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the area of the original Alvara was 40,873 sq.mtrs. In fact, the most crucial document on which the plaintiff seeks to now rely was not exhibited. Both the Courts below recorded the said concurrent finding of fact. 4. In my view, the Second appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and is therefore, dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. lh/.