… 1 … IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO.35 OF 2010. 1 Shri Chandrakant Babu Naik, Aged 60 years, married, retired; 2. Smt. Savitri Vaman Naik, Aged about 70 years, Widow of late Vaman Babu Naik, Housewife; (since deceased) represented by her legal heir 2(a) Sakoba Vaman Naik resident of H.No.23, Santerbhat, Volvoi, Ponda- Goa. Both resident of H.No.23, Santerbhat, Volvoi, Ponda- Goa. .. Appellants. Vs. 1. Shri Rohidas Sukdo Naik, Aged 64 years, Agriculturist, and his wife; 2. Smt. Bhagirathi Rohidas Naik Aged 56 years, housewife; 3. Shri Sanjay Rohidas Naik, Aged about 34 years, Bachelor, service, All resident of Santerbhat, Volvoi, Ponda-Goa. (respondent no.3 is deleted as per order dated 31/1/2011).. Respondents Mr. G. Shirodkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. A. R. Kantak, Advocate for the respondents. … 2 … CORAM :- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Reserved on : 6 th April, 2011. Pronounced on : 11 th April, 2011. ORDER : Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellants/ plaintiffs take exception to the judgment and decree dated 10th December, 2009 passed by the District Judge-I, North Goa, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.25/2009 dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 21st July, 2008 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ponda in Regular Civil Suit no.16/2000/B. 3. The appellants/ plaintiffs filed the above suit against the respondents/ defendants seeking the following reliefs : (a) That by a decree and order of mandatory injunction this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct … 3 … the defendants to demolish and remove the suit construction and restore the land underneath the same to its original state. (b) That by decree and order of permanent injunction this Hon'ble Court pleased to restrain the defendants their relatives, servants, agents and any person or persons claiming through them from carrying out any construction of whatsoever nature in the suit portion and suit property and from interfering in any manner whatsoever in the suit portion and the suit property. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants also filed counterclaim. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had carried out construction in the suit property to the extent of 15 square metres in the suit portion. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence held against the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had neither identified the illegal construction nor proved that it was carried out in the property in possession of the plaintiffs and consequently, the trial Court dismissed the suit and as also the counterclaim. 6. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal to the District … 4 … Court which by the impugned judgment has been dismissed. The lower appellate Court also concurred with the findings given by the trial Court. 7. Mr. Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both the Courts have erred in non- suiting the plaintiffs on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved that the defendants have carried out illegal constructions in the suit portion. According to learned Counsel, the plaintiffs had identified the illegal construction and as such, the findings recorded by both the Courts below that the plaintiffs have not identified the suit portion and that the defendants had not carried out illegal construction in the suit portion, are patently unsustainable in law and perverse. 8. Per contra, Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned decrees. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been out for interference with the … 5 … impugned judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court is justified in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief sought for since the plaintiffs have not identified by cogent evidence the alleged illegal construction carried out by the defendants. The lower appellate Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have not established their right to the suit portion of the land and as such, they have not been able to establish that the defendants have carried out illegal construction in the suit portion of the land. In my opinion, the findings recorded by both the Courts below are pure findings of fact recorded upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties and the same cannot be termed as perverse. 10. No substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is summarily rejected. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA