IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2008 SHRI. VISHNU ATMA NAIK AND 5 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI. DINANATH GOPAL NAIK (EXPIRED) THROUGH LR'S AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Prashant Vengurlekar, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 10th September, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. P. Vengurlekar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants. The Appellants were the Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.143/1995 in which they had sought the removal of two structures, one admeasuring 8 sq. meters and the other 3 sq. meters, by way of mandatory injunction from the suit property surveyed under No.17/20. The suit was initially allowed by the trial Court but came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court by Judgment/Decree dated 3-4-2008. There is no dispute that the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were co-owners of the said property in which the said Defendants have their house and reside therein. The Plaintiffs became exclusive owners of the suit property by virtue of having acquired the same in Inventory Proceedings Nos.33/80 and 133/80 which concluded on 19-9-1980 and 24-7-1982. Thus, the Plaintiffs became the exclusive owners of the suit property from the aforesaid dates. The claim of the Plaintiffs was that the Defendants had set up the said two structures in May and November, 1993, respectively a claim which was resisted by the said Defendant Nos.1 and 2 stating that the said structures were existing from the year 1973. In other words, it could be said that the said structures were claimed by the said Defendants to have been erected by them, at a time when they were the co-owners of the suit property. The learned first appellate Court came to the conclusion, and, in my view rightly that the burden of proof was upon the Plaintiffs to prove that the said structures were set up in the year claimed by the Plaintiffs. In considering the said claim, the learned first appellate Court concluded that the burden was principally on the Plaintiffs to prove that the encroachments were done in May and November, 1993 and then only it would be for the Defendants to prove otherwise. In disallowing the claim of the Plaintiffs, the learned trial Court also noted that the complaints to the Village Panchayat as regards the erection of the said structures was filed eight months after the alleged construction which raised a doubt about the genuineness of the said complaint inasmuch as there was no whisper in the said complaint as to when the said constructions were started being made. Considering the evidence on record, in my view, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove that the said two structures were erected by the Defendants after they became the exclusive owners of the suit property and at a time, claimed by them. As such, there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.