IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2008 MR. URBANO ANTONIO CARVALHO THROUGH ATTORNEY ELTON CARVALHO ... Appellant Versus MR. MATHEW D'SILVA AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 13th February, 2008 P.C. This is plaintiffs' second appeal arising from R.C.S. No.43/1993/D. Heard Mrs. Agni, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants/ plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' suit was decreed in terms of prayer (aa) but was dismissed in terms of prayer (a). The plaintiffs purchased the property bearing survey Nos.86/6 and 86/8 from one Caetana Dias by sale deed dated 18.2.1982 and filed the said suit against the defendants on 16.3.1993 claiming a traditional access towards the defendant's property under survey No.86/10 i.e. prayer(a). In support of their claim, the plaintiff No.2 examined one Xavier Soares who was residing at a distance of 300 meters from the properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Presumably, the plaintiffs could not examine their Vendor, the said Caetana Dias because she had expired prior to the filing of the suit and for that reason they examined the said Soares to support their case. The learned trial Court has noted that plaintiff No.2 could not tell where was the traditional access in the property surveyed under S.No.87/10 and even if the sketch was shown to her, she could not read the sketch. The learned First Appellate Court noted that plaintiff No.2's claim for traditional access was from the time she purchased the property and that was within 11 years. As regards the evidence of P.W.2, the learned First Appellate Court noted that this witness had not been to the property of the plaintiff's prior to its purchase. It is therefore, obvious that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they had acquired a right to the suit access for requisite period. It appears that the plaintiffs had produced before the First Appellate Court an order dated 11.8.2006 of the Deputy Collector by which it was stated that survey No.86/2 which was shown as footpath, was in fact a water drain and the survey was required to be corrected accordingly. The contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs is that the learned First Appellate Court has not taken into consideration the said order dated 11.8.2006. Even if the said order was taken into consideration, it certainly did not discharge the plaintiffs from proving their claim of traditional access towards the defendant's property for requisite number of years. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the right claimed by them for traditional access through Defendants' property. These are the concurrent findings on fact rendered by the Courts below. I have perused the substantial questions of law formulated. None of them arise in this appeal in view of the said concurrent findings. Second Appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. SMA