IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2011 MRS. ELFA S. FERNANDES ... Appellant Versus ZILLA PANCHAYAT SOUTH GOA DISTRICT THROUGH CHAIRMAN AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Galileo Teles, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 13th July, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 31st March, 2009 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.125/2008 by which the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 27th August, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.113/2006 has been dismissed. 3. The appellant herein filed the above suit seeking permanent and mandatory injunction. It was the case of the plaintiff that she has a shop/ restaurant situated in the property surveyed under Survey No.256/2 of Velim village which has been in existence for more than 25 years and constructed after obtaining necessary licences and permissions from the concerned authorities. It was further the case of the plaintiff that respondent no.1 had constructed structure in the adjoining property without maintaining the required setback. Based on these pleadings, the suit was filed with the reliefs of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The suit was contested. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The findings given by the trial Court have been concurred by the lower appellate Court. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, I find that no case has been made out for admission of Second Appeal. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff had not produced any document in so far as the construction carried out by her in the property bearing survey No.225/2 is concerned. The plaintiff placed reliance upon the various documents to prove the possession of the plaintiff. The possession of the plaintiff by itself would not be sufficient to establish that the construction carried out by the defendant no.1 was without keeping any appropriate setback and contrary to law. It was for the plaintiff to prove whether the construction carried out by her in the suit property was in accordance with law and only thereafter, the plaintiff could have succeeded in getting decree in the event the plaintiff proved that the setback was not maintained. 5. On this sole ground, I find that the decrees passed by both the Courts below cannot be faulted. No substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA