1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Second Appeal No.48 of 2009 1. Smt. Filomena Gomes, Major in age, housewife, R/O H.No.166, Talapvaddo, Ilha de Rachol, Salcete-Goa. ..... Appellant V e r s u s 2. Shri Santana Gomes, Major in age, H.No.164, Talapvaddo, Salcette-Goa. ..... Respondent Shri P.P. Singh, Learned Advocate for the Appellant. Coram: N.A. Britto, J Date: 28th April, 2010. Oral Order: 1. This is the Plaintiff's Second Appeal, arising from Regular Civil Suit No.133/96/C. 2. Heard Shri P.P. Singh, the Learned Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff. 3. The Plaintiff has a property surveyed under survey no. 37/19. To the southern side there is property of the defendant surveyed under survey no.37/16 and to the defendant's southern side there is the property surveyed under survey no.37/5 of one 2 Maria Gomes. The Plaintiff filed the suit alleging that when they were away from Goa, the defendant demolished their northern side wall of the house and started digging in their property. In support of the case the Plaintiff examined herself and one more witness, who apparently did not support the case of the Plaintiff. The Defendant also examined herself and a person from the Panchayat. The said person who is the Ex Sarpanch supported the case of the Defendant to the effect that the defendant had carried out repairs to their house on the existing plinth. The Learned trial Court inter alia observed that the Plaintiff had not produced any plan to show the illegal construction, that she had not produced photographs to show the alleged illegal construction; that she also had not examined any expert who could state anything about the alleged illegal construction. The Learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal after coming to the conclusion that the Plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant had encroached in any part of the property of the Plaintiff. Both the Courts below have, on the basis of the evidence produced, came to the conclusion that the Plaintiff failed to make a case that the defendant had in any way encroached upon the property of the Plaintiff. 3 4. Considering the facts of the case, there are no substantial questions of law to be decided in this appeal either as formulated or otherwise. Consequently, the appeal is hereby dismissed. N. A. Britto, J. Ap/-