IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 113 OF 2008 SMT. APOLONIA ELIZA DIAS AND 13 ORS., ... Appellants Versus SHRI. MARCUS FERNANDES AND 16 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. V. R. Tamba with Mr. D. Zaveri, Advocates for respondent nos.1 To R-11, 13 To 17. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 21st January, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tamba, learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 11 and 13 to 17. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 8th August, 2008 passed by the District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Mapusa in Regular Civil Appeal no.7/2007 allowing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 7th December, 2006 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.29/1998/B by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bicholim whereby the suit filed by the appellants against the respondents seeking declaration and correction of survey records, came to be decreed. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the learned lower appellate Court has not committed any illegality in allowing the appeal and dismissing the suit. It is pertinent to note that in the suit, the plaintiffs sought the following reliefs : (i) for a declaration to the effect that the plaintiffs are co-occupants of Survey No.70, sub-division 3 of Bicholim and the names of the plaintiffs are liable to be recorded as co-occupants of the said survey number. (ii) the costs of this suit be awarded to the plaintiffs. 4. It is also pertinent to note that the plaintiffs did not seek declaration that they are the owners of the property bearing Survey No.70/3 and have only sought declaration that they are the co-occupants of the said property. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court was absolutely justified in reversing the decree passed by the trial Court. The findings given by the lower appellate Court are borne out from the evidence on record and as such, no fault can be found with the said findings. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the Second Appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA