1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. SECOND APPEAL NO.86 OF 2007 1. Victor John Filip D'Mello, son of Venancio Xavier D'Mello, major of age, married and his wife 2. Mrs. Soona D'Mello wife of Mr. Victor John Filip D'Mello, major of age, married, both residing at De Mello Vaddo, Canca Bardez Goa. ... Appellants. v e r s u s 1. Meghashyam S. Salgaokar, son of late Sakharam Salgaokar 2. Smt. Medharati M. Salgaonkar, wife of Meghashyam Salgaonkar, 3. Shri Vithal Sakharam Salgaonkar son of late Sakharam Salgaokar, 4. Smt. Shilpa Vithal Salgaonkar, wife of Vithal Salgaokar, 5. Shri Hanumant Sakaram Salgaokar son of late Sakharam Salgaonkar, 6. Smt. Harsha H. Salgaokar, wife of Hanumant Salgaokar, 7. Shri Surendra S. Salgaokar son of late Sakharam Salgaokar, 2 8. Smt. Subita S. Salgaokar wife of Surendra Salgaokar all major of age and resident of House No.409, D'Mello Vaddo, Canca, Bardez Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. S.D.Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.S. Lotlikar for the Respondent no.1 to 8. CORAM: N. A. BRITTO, J. DATED: 23rd July, 2008. ORAL ORDER: This is a plaintiffs' Second Appeal arising from Regular Civil Suit No.193/1989/D. Heard Learned Counsels on behalf of both the parties. We could proceed on the assumption that Survey no.32/15 belongs to the plaintiffs. The defendant (since deceased) has a house in it and is a registered mundkar. It would not be necessary to find out as to whose mundkar he is. 2. The suit was filed with the allegations that on 26.5.1989 the defendant had put a shed of 8 X 4 metres and a pakadi towards the rear side of the house of 4 X 1 ½ metres . In otherwords the suit was for demolition of extensions, done by the 3 defendant. The Learned Trial Court framed issue no.2 and answered the same against the plaintiffs. The Learned First Appellate Court also considered the issue of extensions, and it appears that plaintiffs' own witness namely Pw 1 was unable to substantiate the same. The Learned First Appellate Court has not relied upon the evidence of Pw 2 who according to Learned Appellate Court had an axe to grind against the defendant. The Learned First Appellate Court has also taken into consideration the evidence led on behalf of the defendant particularly of DW 3 Gopinath, who had stated that the cowshed was existing for last about 30 years. In otherwords, plaintiffs had failed to prove that the defendant had carried out extensions as alleged by them and therefore both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit, and uphold the said dismissal, respectively. There is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Hence same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. cg/.