1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 97 OF 2010 Mr. Sadashiv Nasnodkar, major, businessman, r/o Duler, Mapusa Goa. … Appellant V e r s u s 1. Mr. Teofillo Barreto, represented by his Power of Attorney holder Shri Rajendra P. Halarnkar, major, c/o Laxmi Saw Mill, Near Bastora Bridge/Mapusa Church, Mapusa Goa. ( since deceased through his legal representatives ) a) Heramina Tiophilo Barretto b) Regina Barretto, c) Rosy Barretto, All r/o Gaunsavaddo, Mapusa Goa. d) Gajetan Fernandes, e) Luisa Fernandes, Both r/o Monte Villa, Sangolda, Goa. f) Mr. John Teofilo Barreto, g) Francis Teofilo Barreto, Both r/o Gaunsavaddo, Mapusa Goa. h) Ms. Rosy Ambrose Fernandes, i) Ambrose Fernandes, Both r/o Near Damodar Residency, Arrady, Guirim, Goa. 2. Mr. Ghanashyam A. Nasnodkar/Nachinolkar, major, married, business and his wife (Mr. Ghanashyam A. Nasnodkar since deceased through his legal representatives ) 2 I) Mrs. Smita Prakash Lotlikar ( daughter ) ii) Mr. Prakash Damodar Lotlikar ( son-in-law) iii) Shri Anandrao G. Nasnodkar ( son) iv) Mrs. Vidhya A. Nasnodkar ( daughter-in-law) v) Shri Harish G. Nasnodkar ( son) vi) Mrs. Prarthana H. Nasnodkar (daughter-in-law) vii) Smt. Suhasini G. Nasnodkar ( wife) All r/o H. No. 88, Gaunsavaddo, Mapusa Goa. 3. Mrs. Suhasini G. Nasnodkar /Nachinolkar, major, housewife, Mapusa, Bardez Goa. …. Respondents Mr. Nitin Sardessai with Mr. L. Raghunandan, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Godinho, Advocate for respondent nos. 1(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) & (i). CORAM : A. P. LAVANDE,J DATE : 16 th AUGUST, 2011 . P.C.:- By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes an exception to the judgment and decree dated 5th June, 2010 passed by the District Judge-1, Fast Track Court, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.20/2005 by which the lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13th December, 2004 passed by the Civil Judge 3 Senior Division, Mapusa in Special Civil suit No.70/2002/C. 2. The appellant is the original plaintiff in the suit filed against the defendants seeking reliefs of declaration of title, permanent injunction and deletion of entry in survey records in respect of the suit property. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defendants challenged the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. 3. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence led by the parties dismissed the suit and also the counter claim preferred by defendant no.1 in the suit. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff. 4. Mr. Sardessai, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has proved his title to the suit property and, therefore, both the Courts have erred in rejecting the prayers of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. He further submitted that the finding given by the lower appellate Court that the suit is barred by limitation is also unsustainable in law and, therefore, the impugned decree passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 4 5. Per contra, Shri Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for some of the respondents supported the impugned decree passed by the lower appellate Court and submitted that no fault can be found with the findings given by the lower appellate Court while dismissing the appeal. Learned Counsel further submitted that the findings recorded by both the Courts below against the plaintiff are borne out from the evidence on record. Learned Counsel further submitted that the lower appellate Court has rightly held that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property was confirmed in survey proceedings for the first time in the year 1979 and as such the suit filed in the year 1992 was clearly barred by limitation. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C. Perusal of impugned decree passed by the lower appellate Court discloses that the lower appellate Court has analysed the evidence led by both the parties and after appreciating the evidence led by the parties has come to the conclusion that 5 the plaintiff has not proved his title to the suit property. Moreover, the finding given by the lower appellate Court that the suit was barred by limitation cannot be said to be perverse warranting interference in Second Appeal. In my considered opinion no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. Hence, the appeal is rejected. A. P. LAVANDE,J at*