IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 98 OF 2010 MR. JOAO MASCARENHAS AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus MR. JACINTO D'SILVA AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 5th January, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 15th June, 2010 passed by the District Judge-II, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.133/2010 allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 2009 passed by the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.146/2004/II whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs / respondents seeking declaration that they have acquired easementary right of way by prescription in respect of the access to the extent of 3 meters was partly decreed. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had acquired easementary right of way to the extent of 1.5 meters only and not 3 meters as claimed by the plaintiffs. The said decree was not challenged by the defendants, but the same was challenged by the plaintiffs. 3. The lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree held that the plaintiffs had established easementary right of way by prescription in respect of 3 meters and the learned trial Judge was wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had proved easementary right of way to the extent of 1.5 meters. 4. Having heard Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, I find that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree. The findings recorded by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be perverse or not borne out from the evidence on record to justify interference in Second Appeal. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA