IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2010 DR. CAROLIN D'SOUZA ... Appellant Versus SHRI. UTTAM V. DEVSHEKAR (SINCE DEC.) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Mr. G. Nagavekar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 25th July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Nagavekar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 27th April, 2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge at Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal No.168/2009 by which the appeal preferred by the appellant herein has been dismissed and cross-objections have been partly allowed by declaring the deed of rectification dated 13th August, 1997 null and void. 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.247/1998/F before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa seeking relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 21st September, 1987 be declared null and void and consequently, correction in survey record in respect of the suit property. The defendants filed counterclaim seeking declaration that gift deed dated 19th January, 1993 and deed of rectification dated 13th August, 1997 are null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit as well as the counterclaim. In appeal preferred by the original plaintiff, the defendants filed cross-objections in respect of the counterclaim, which was rejected by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the suit and partly allowed the cross-objections by declaring the deed of rectification null and void. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I find that the finding of the trial Court that the suit for declaration was barred by limitation since it was filed beyond the period of limitation of three years, is borne out from the evidence on record and as such, cannot be faulted. In so far as the order passed by the lower appellate Court granting partly the cross-objections is concerned, in view of the dismissal of the suit by the trial Court which order has been upheld by the lower appellate Court, I do not find any illegality in the approach of the lower appellate Court in declaring the deed of rectification null and void. 5. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA