1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2008 WITH CIVILAPPLICATION NO. 135 OF 2008 Smt. Nalini Nagueshkar and others. ... Appellants versus The “Confre” of the Confraria of Santissimo Sacrament O e Do Nossa Senhora de Guia. ... Respondent Shri V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the Appellants. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C.:- Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. This is Defendants' Second Appeal arising from Regular Civil Suit No.2/1999/D. The Plaintiff/Respondent is an institution. By an agreement of lease the Plaintiff had given to the Defendants and/or their predecessors in title a certain portion of their property for stacking of wood and its products, it not being permissible to make any construction therein, nor even to lease or sub-lease the said timber yard. The said agreement which was initially for a period of eleven 2 months appears to have been renewed on same terms and conditions and the last renewal was on 3-1-1976. Prior to that on or about 7-1-1975 the Plaintiff gave a N.O.C. to the Defendants stating that they had no objection for constructing the temporary barrack in the said property. There is no dispute that the Defendants converted a temporary barrack into a stone structure i.e. a permanent structure. Many of the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff were abandoned by them before the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court reversed the Judgment and decreed the suit and to the extent it was contested and directed the Defendants to restore the structure occupied by them to its original condition by substituting its wall made by laterite stones, with walls made of wooden planks and further restrained the Respondent from doing any construction in the property. It is this Order which is challenged in this Second Appeal. 3. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants relying upon the case of Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari((2001) 3 SCC 179) submits that the learned first appellate Court did not at all come in close quarters with the Judgment of the trial Court in reversing the findings. As far as the principle is concerned there can be no dispute about it but as far as the facts of the case is concerned the said decision is not at all applicable. The learned first appellate Court has also given a finding as to when the Defendants converted the temporary structure into a permanent structure by appreciating the evidence led by the Defendants, on that score. The lease having been given only for storage of wood and subsequently by virtue of no objection, the Defendants having been 3 allowed to erect a temporary barrack, the Defendants were certainly not entitled to convert a temporary structure into a permanent structure and in that view of the matter the findings given by the first appellate Court cannot be faulted. The contention that the said N.O.C. was not looked into also cannot be accepted. No substantial questions of law as formulated or otherwise arise in this Second Appeal and the same is consequently hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD