1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NOS. 38 AND 39 OF 2008 Mr. Zorgo Chandru Velipo ... Appellant versus Cuiro Sanklu Velip(deceased) through L.R's. and others. ... Respondents Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellant. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants who are the plaintiffs in R.C.S. No.27/87. 2. It appears that the dispute between both the parties is regarding part of the property surveyed under Nos. 80/6 and 80/11. The respondents herein had filed R.C.S. No.27/87 claiming to be in possession of survey Nos. 80/6 and 80/11 and for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the same. R.C.S. No.20/87/B was filed by the respondents herein claiming the entire property i.e. survey Nos. 80/6, 80/11, 80/7 and 80/8 and the suit was decreed in respect of 2 survey Nos.80/7 and 80/8 and was dismissed in respect of survey Nos. 80/6 and 80/11. The parties had led common evidence but two separate judgments were passed by the Courts below. 3. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that in respect of survey Nos.80/6 and 80/11 it is the respondents herein who were in possession of the same and the appellants had failed to prove their title to the same. It appears that the appellants had executed a Rectification Deed after filing of the suit so as to include survey Nos.80/6 and 80/11 but the same has been considered by the learned first appellate Court in paras 39 and 40 of the judgment. Both the Courts below have given concurrent findings that the property surveyed under Nos.80/6 and 80/11 is in possession of the respondents herein and the appellants had failed to prove title to the same. 4. In the above view of the matter no substantial questions of law arises in these appeals and the same are therefore hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD