IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 45 OF 2009 SEBASTIAO BARRETO ... Appellant Versus MR. PRECIOSIO D'SOUZA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.N. Sardessai, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- R. M. SAVANT, J. Date:- 13th November, 2009 P.C. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2009 by which the Appeal filed by the appellant herein being Regular Civil Appeal No.140/2008 came to be dismissed and the decree passed by the Trial Court partly decreeing the suit filed by the respondents herein came to be confirmed. 2. The respondents herein are the original plaintiffs who had filed Regular Civil Suit No.32/1996/C for a declaration that they be declared as owners in possession of the suit house including two houses situated therein. The plaintiffs also claim certain anxilliary reliefs. The suit property is the property known as Indoi Sirvodem admeasuring 3602.50 sq.mtrs. surveyed under chalta no.48 of P.T. sheet No.295 of City Survey, Margao. The case of the plaintiffs is that at the time of the purchase of the property there was an old dwelling house and a well situated therein. The plaintiffs repaired the old house immediately after its purchase and in the year 1989-90, the plaintiffs constructed a new house about 17 metres away from the old house. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after completion of the suit house the plaintiffs and their family members started residing therein. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendant was provided a job in the workshop belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendant was also provided with accommodation in the suit house as part of the consideration for working in the work shop of the plaintiff no.1 and during the said time, the defendant was provided with free meals by the plaintiffs. One of the keys of the main door was with the defendant whereas the other key was with the plaintiff no.2. It was further the plaintiffs' case that in the year 1994, the plaintiff no.1 closed down his business and the defendant was asked to find an alternate employment, however he did not get any alternate employment and continued to stay with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs on humanitarian grounds provided the defendant with meals and lodging from January 1994 to June 1995. During this period the defendant was not working for the plaintiff no.1 but he was provided with boarding and lodging for which Rs.750/- were charged per month. It is the case of the plaintiffs that in July 1995, the defendant left the house without giving the keys to the plaintiffs which triggered the filing of the said suit. 3. The defendant filed the written statement and it was the case of the defendant that there was an agreement with the plaintiffs for sale of 600 sq.mtrs. of the said suit property for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and that the suit house has been constructed out of the funds advanced by the defendant. It was further the case of the defendant that he was in possession of the suit house till 10.03.1996 and that he had his belongings in the said suit house. It was further the case of the defendant that he was dispossessed and his belongings were thrown out. There is an admission of the defendant as regards the plaintiffs' ownership. 4. The parties went to trial. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence and more especially the admission of the defendant that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit property and one of the house, came to the conclusion that the declaration sought by the plaintiffs was required to be granted. The Trial Court has also recorded a finding that the defendant could only be said to be in permissive possession in the light of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs and therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to terminate the licence and have accordingly terminated the licence. The Civil Court proceeded on the basis of the admission of the defendant as regards the plaintiffs' ownership. 5. Being aggrieved by the decree passed by the Trial Court, the defendant i.e. the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal. The Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and thereby confirmed the decree. Both the Courts below have therefore concurrently recorded findings of fact as regards declaration and possession. 6. It would also be pertinent to note that the defendant who lays much stress on the alleged agreement between him and the plaintiffs has filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement. The said suit is Regular Civil Suit No.99/2003. The defendant would therefore be agitating the said issue of specific performance in the said suit. 7. Since both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings on facts and considering the grounds of appeal and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and is accordingly dismissed. R. M. SAVANT, J. lh/.