IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2009 MRS. ELIZABETH CARDOZO ... Appellant Versus MR. SILVESTRE DIAS ... Respondent Mr. Amrut Kansar, Advocate for the Appellant. Coram:- B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 15th July, 2009 P.C. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant-plaintiff. 2. The challenge is to concurrent dismissal of suit for grant of permanent injunction. Injunction sought is in relation to encroachment by defendant. The Courts below have concurrently found that plaintiff could establish his title to only part of survey no. 22/13 and could not establish that defendant encroached 64 square metres of area of plaintiff's land between 13.03.2000 to 18.05.2000. The discussion shows that the evidence on record revealed existence of structure of defendant since last more than thirty years. 3. In this background, the provisions of Limitation Act are looked into and it has been noted that a suit for injunction could have been filed within three years. The learned Advocate has tried to urge that the encroachment is established and ownership of part of land is also established and hence suit could not have been dismissed in its entirety. The encroachment as alleged is found to be not proved by both the Courts. This is a finding of fact and no question of law arises on that account. 4. In the circumstances, it is apparent that no interference is warranted in the present circumstances in this appeal. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no Order as to costs. B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. arp/*