IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 22 OF 2008 MR. NATIVIDADE JEROME D'SOUZA THROUGH ATTORNEY MRS. MARIALINA D'SOUZA AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus MR. FLORENCE D'SOUZA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. M. B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.A. Lobo, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 27th March, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri M.B. Da Costa, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants. 2. The appellants were the defendants in RCS No. 215/1999. They are the son and daughter-in-law of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the said defendants for their eviction from the suit house. The learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were the owners of the suit house and the suit property, and proceeded to order their eviction. The learned first appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the said house was the subject matter of inventory proceedings initiated upon the death of the parents of plaintiff no.1 and, therefore, the suit house and the suit property originally belonged to the parents of the plaintiff no.1. The learned first appellate Court also referred to form no. I and XIV of survey no. 48/2, which showed that the plaintiff no.1 was shown as sole occupant thereof and that the plaintiffs had proved that they were the owners in possession of the suit property and the suit house. The learned first appellate Court also referred to the evidence led on behalf of the defendants and came to the conclusion that, that evidence, did not prove the ownership of the defendant in respect of the suit property and the suit house and on the contrary their evidence showed that after the marriage of the defendants with one another they were residing with the parents of the defendant no.2 and that at the request of the plaintiffs that they came to reside in the suit house. Therefore, it was evident that the defendants were not residing in the suit house as of right, as owners, but they were residing with the permission of the plaintiffs. The judgment of the learned first appellate Court shows that several efforts were made to settle the dispute between the parents and the children namely the plaintiffs and the defendants, respectively. 3. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellants has pointed out to an affidavit field by plaintiff no.2 Mrs. Filomena D'Souza dated 5/03/3007, before the District Court and submitted that at least one of the parents being the co-owners of the suit property and the suit house, supported the case of the said defendants. All that the said affidavit states is that inspite of best efforts, the matter could not be settled. It also states that reconciliation proceedings have failed and she did not wish that her son/appellant no.1 should be on the streets along with his minor children, as he has no residence of his own and such action would affect the future of her grand children. The said affidavit only shows the pious wish of the mother. Admittedly, the mother, the plaintiff no.2 was very much a party to the suit filed for the eviction of the defendants and in such a situation, the said affidavit does not take the defendants either here nor there. Nothing prevented her from withdrawing the suit at any stage, in case she did not wish to seek eviction of the defendants. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the suit property with the suit house belonged to the parents namely the plaintiffs and that the defendant no.1 being one of the sons, was residing in the suit house with the permission of the plaintiffs. These are the concurrent findings of facts. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal. 4. Appeal, therefore is hereby dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH