IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 11 OF 2009 SHRI. CARMO SIMOES AND 9 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI. SHABA JIR SAWANT DESSAI AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. J. F. Melo, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 15th July, 2009 P.C. Heard. Advocate Shri Melo for the appellants-original appellants 2. The challenge is to reversing appellate Court Judgment. The suit filed by the appellants for declaration and mandatory injunction as also permanent injunction has been allowed by the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court has dismissed suit after recording that plaintiffs could not identify the suit properties in the Court and also his suit disclosed no cause of action and was apparently time barred. Learned Counsel has stated that basically two questions call for determination. The first one is about the identification of the suit property and for that purpose interpretation of the Sale cum Release dated 26.06.19792 in the light of the evidence on record. Second one is about the event from which a limitation is to be computed. 3. Inviting attention to Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, it is contended that the express denial of title of appellants-plaintiffs by defendants is finding place in the written statement for the first time. The appreciation of this aspect by lower Appellate Court in paragraph 27 is stated to be uncalled for as, according to learned Counsel, Section 34 of Specific Relief Act permits challenge and declaration even in relation to future possible denial of title. 4. With the assistance of learned Counsel, I have perused the plaint as filed. Neither paragraph 11 of the plaint nor its paragraph 15 specify the cause of action as required by law. The evidence which has come on record has been appreciated in this background and the Court has found that the entries of the name of defendants in Revenue Records were done more than 20 years back. In fact, DW1 has stated that one Augusto Simoes was recognized as tenant of part of survey no. 129/1 and he also became its deemed owner under Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964. The appreciation of application of limitation in the light of pleadings by lower Appellate Court cannot be stated to be either erroneous or perverse. Once the suit is found to be time barred, it is clear that no substantial question of law arises. The reliance upon the provisions of Section 34 is misconceived because the denial of title contemplated therein is not a future denial and no cause of action relevant to restrain a suit can be construed as accruing in future. 5. Second Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*