IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2008 LAXMI VAMAN PEDNEKAR ... Appellant Versus SHRI. DNANESHWAR HARI MASURKAR AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 1st April, 2009 ORAL ORDER: This is plaintiff's second appeal arising from Civil Suit No. 15/2003. 2. Heard Shri V. Menezes, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff. The plaintiff was registered as a mundkar by order of the Mamlatdar dated 11/07/1986 of house existing in Survey No. 6/4 of village Parra. The plaintiff's sons subsequently purchased about 1,005/- sq. mts. of the said Survey No.6/4 by a sale deed dated 22/11/1993 from Diago Antonio Fernandes and his wife Maria Rita C.E. Fernandes. The defendants also purchased another portion of the same property lying on its North West corner admeasuring about 40 sq. mts. by sale deed dated 26/11/1976 and another 30 sq. mts. by a sale deed dated 19/10/1977. After purchase of the said 70 sq. mts., defendant no.2 started construction of a compound wall running from South to North direction and while constructing the said compound wall, defendant no.1 kept an opening about a meter and, according to the plaintiff, this was an access kept for the plaintiff to go to the public road while according to the defendant the said opening was kept in order to enable the defendant no.1 to go to the public road through the property bearing no.6/4. On account of interference from the brothers-in-law of the plaintiff and her sons in constructing the said wall, the defendants were compelled to file the suit which was registered as Civil Suit No. 144/77. That suit was decreed in favour of the defendants and even a second appeal bearing no. 43/1987 filed before this Court was dismissed by order dated 7/04/1989. The plaintiff was a witness of her sons in the said Civil Suit and apparently after the said Civil Suit was decreed, the opening kept by the defendants to the said wall constructed by the defendants in North-South direction was closed which made the plaintiff to file the present suit claiming the right of a traditional access to go to the road. 3. Both the Courts below have rendered a finding that there was no such traditional access as claimed by the plaintiff. It is interesting to note that the said traditional access found no mention in the sale deed dated 22/11/1993 by which the plaintiff's sons purchased the part of property of Survey No. 6/4 around the house of the plaintiff. It also found no mention in the sale deeds by which the defendants had purchased 70 sq. mts. by the said two sale deeds. Likewise, the said access also did not feature either in the deposition of a plaintiff as a witness of her sons when they were sought to be restrained in the said civil suit filed by the defendants against the said sons. The contention of Shri Menezes, that there was no such occasion for the plaintiff to depose in the suit of her sons about her right, cannot be accepted. Looked from any angle, it is but natural and probable that the plaintiff's sons, when they were sought to be restrained from interfering in the said 70 sq. mts. purchased by the defendants, they would have set up a plea that they or their mother had a right to pass through the said opening through the property purchased by the defendants. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence have given concurrent findings which require no interference. 4. There is no merit in this second appeal and, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH