IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2008 SHRI. BALCRISHNA SHIVRAM NAIK GAONCAR AND 3 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI. K. RAGHVA REDDY AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 27th March, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Shivan Dessai, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants. The Appellants herein were the Plaintiffs in Special Civil Suit No.143/94 filed by them. The said Plaintiffs had claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- by way of damages sustained by them on account of the Defendants extracting mud from their property between 27-3-1994 till 27-4-1994. In support of their claim the Plaintiffs had examined an expert, namely, PW2 who had assessed the damages at Rs.1.5 lakhs. In fact, the said sum was estimated by him as the sum which would be required by the Plaintiffs to bring the property to its original condition. The trial Court did observe that PW2 had arrived at the said figure of Rs.1.5 lakhs without any basis and accepting the said figure would be an arbitrary exercise of discretion. Nevertheless, the learned trial Court proceeded to award damages to the Plaintiffs in the sum of Rs.75,000/- in her discretion on account of damages/loss caused to the Plaintiffs by extracting mud from survey numbers 273/1 and 285/3. The learned trial Court did not disclose the basis of her discretion. The learned first appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the testimony of PW2 could not be accepted. The learned first appellate Court further came to the conclusion that there was no cogent and convincing evidence to establish the extent of encroachment or damages towards the same and therefore it was not proper on the part of the learned trial Judge to have granted the reliefs sought by the Plaintiffs. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants submits that the first appellate Court disregarded the admission of the Defendants as regards the excavation and damages. I am enable to accept the said submission. Admittedly, both the Courts below did not accept the evidence of PW2 and as such there was no other evidence which could have been accepted. The finding of the learned first appellate Court even if it is erroneous does not give rise to any question of law much less a substantial question of law either as framed by the Plaintiffs or otherwise. In the circumstances therefore this Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.