IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2006 SHRI RAMANATH CUSTA ZOLMI AND 7 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI FONDU PUNDOLIC ZOLMI AND 50 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. N. K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Arun Bras De Sa, Advocate for Respondent Nos.37 to 43. Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5, 9(a) to 9(d), 10 to 18, 23, 24, 25(1) to 25(ll), 27 to 36 and 44 to 51. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 18th June, 2008 P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of all parties. This is a Second Appeal filed by the plaintiffs arising from R.C.S. No.298/2000/C. There is no dispute that the property "Ghorbhat" is surveyed under Nos. 61/1, 61/2, 61/23 and 66 of Village Khandola. The survey Nos. 61/1 is surveyed in the names of Respondent Nos.28 to 55, 61/2 is surveyed in the name of Respondent No.7 and survey Nos.62/23 and 66 are surveyed in the names of Respondent Nos.56 to 70. Claiming that a part of it identified by letter A on the sketch, belonged to the plaintiffs through one Mosno Zalmi, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the said part of the said property Ghorbhat exclusively belonged to the plaintiffs. The trial Court gave a finding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were the descendants of the said Mosno Zalmi as well as had failed to identify a part of the property claimed by the plaintiffs. The learned first appellate Court also came to the conclusion that the learned trial Court after proper assessment of the evidence in proper prospective had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and therefore no interference was called. The above are but concurrent findings of fact rendered by the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises therefrom. There is no merit in this Second Appeal. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants throughout. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.