IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2009 MR. FELICIANO FERNANDES (EXPIRED) THROUGH ITS L.RS ... Appellant Versus MR. DOMINGO ALBERTO RIBEIRO AND ANR. ... Respondent Mr. Iftikhar Agha, Advocate for appellants. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sudha Pai Kir, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 7th December, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. Agha, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellants challenge the judgment and decree dated 29th July, 2009 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.77/2008 allowing the appeal filed by the respondents challenging the judgment and decree dated 7th August, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No.404/2000/B. 3. The appellants filed the above suit alleging that by an agreement dated 12th March, 1978, the defendants had agreed to sell an area admeasuring 300 square meters for consideration of Rs.7,500/-. The plaintiffs also relied upon the declaration-cum-affidavit dated 5th November, 1981 given by the defendants. 4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 1995 seeking relief of specific performance and in the alternative for declaration that they are the owners being in adverse possession of the said plot of land. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence led by the plaintiffs, decreed the suit. The appellate Court dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the grounds that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation and also on the ground that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint did not tally with the boundaries mentioned in the agreement dated 12th March, 1978. 5. Mr. Agha, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding given by the appellate Court that the suit was barred by limitation is patently unsustainable in law. He further submitted that in so far as the boundaries are concerned, there was no dispute raised by the defendants and as such, the plaintiffs could not have been non-suited on the said ground. 6. Per contra, Mr. Lotlikar, Senior Counsel for the respondents submitted that the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation in as much as the impediment in the transfer of the plot was removed long before the filing of the suit and the plaintiffs had not pleaded as to when the said impediment was cleared. He further submitted that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint do not tally either with the boundaries mentioned in the agreement dated 12th March, 1978 or with the declaration dated 5th November, 1981. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment and decree. Perusal of the record discloses that the boundaries mentioned in the agreement dated 12th March, 1978 do not tally with the boundaries of the plot mentioned in the declaration dated 5th November, 1981 nor with the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. It is absolutely essential for the plaintiffs to identify the suit property and the relief to be granted by the Court does not depend upon whether the defendants raise the issue or not in as much as the decree passed by the Court has to be executable. On this ground alone, I am of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the decree passed by the lower appellate Court dismissing the suit for specific performance. 8. In view of the above, I do not deem it necessary to deal with the finding regarding the issue of limitation. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA