IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2008 SHRI. RAJENDRA D. SHIRODKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. BHARAT D. SHIRODKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 6th August, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant. The Appellant is the Defendant in R.C.S. No.670/2000/III. Plaintiffs suit for eviction of the Defendant from the garage owned by him was decreed by the trial Court by Judgment/Decree dated 3-2-2007. The Defendant had taken the plea that the suit garage was owned in common by all the brothers, a plea which was negatived by the learned trial Court. An appeal having been filed against the said Judgment and Decree the same came to be modified by the learned first Appellate Court by Judgment dated 5-1-2008. In the course of the first appeal, the Plaintiffs had given up their plea that a door opened to the said garage ought to be closed by the Defendant. The learned first Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment/Decree of the trial Court but as regards payment of mesne profits left the matter to be adjudicated in execution proceedings. The learned first Appellate Court, as regards the eviction of the Defendant, confirmed the finding given by the trial Court. It may be stated that the Plaintiffs had examined one of the brothers who supported the claim of the Plaintiffs as against that of the Defendant that the garage was exclusively owned by the Plaintiffs. Both the Courts below have concurrently arrived at a finding, on the basis of evidence that the suit garage belonged to the Plaintiffs and was not owned by all the brothers. This being a finding of facts, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. In case the Appellant/Defendant requires some time to vacate the said garage, the Defendant will be free to approach the Executing Court for the same which request, the learned Executing Court is bound to consider on its own merits. There is no merit in this Second Appeal and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.