IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 92 OF 2007 SHRI. KESHAV SAGUN POROB (DECEASED)THROUGH HIS LR'S AND 4 ORS ... Appellants Versus SHRI. NARAYAN VITHAL POROB (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LR'S ... Respondent M. P. Amonkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 30th July, 2008 P.C.:- This is Defendants Second Appeal arising from R. C. S. No.30/83/C. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. The dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants was regarding properties surveyed under Nos.77/1, 78/16, 78/17, 79/1, 79/2, 78/15 and 80/1. The said properties are admittedly surveyed in form Nos.I and XIV in the names of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claiming the said properties as property "Quelly" or "Sinxachem Tolem" filed the suit against the defendants for injunction simpliciter. The defendants raised a counterclaim and it appears that it was raised belatedly after a gap of eight years and both the Courts below rejected the said counterclaim and the said first Appellate Court also rejected it not being in consonance with Order 8, Rule 6A of C.P.C. The trial Court had dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs but the learned first Appellate Court reversed the said dismissal and decreed the suit by Judgment/Decree dated 21-9-2006 in R.C.A. No.85 of 2004. The suit filed by the plaintiffs have been decreed after a meticulous exercise of evidence led by the parties. The learned first Appellate Court noted that the learned trial Judge had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of survey Nos.77/1, 78/17, 79/1, 79/2 and 80/1 and that the defendants had failed to prove that they were in possession and enjoyment of the trees of the said area, and once the learned trial Judge had come to that conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid survey numbers and the defendants had failed to prove their possession, the logical conclusion would have been that the plaintiffs would be entitled for an order of injunction. The learned first Appellate Court has also come to the conclusion, after discussing the evidence produced on behalf of the parties, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property surveyed under the said seven sub-divisions, referred to herein above and that the defendants had failed to prove that they were in possession of about 50,000 sq. meters adversely to the plaintiffs. It appears that some of the defendants have their houses in the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have no dispute as regards their enjoyment of the said house by the defendants, in the suit property. Learned Counsel on behalf of the defendants submits that the evidence was not considered in the proper context by the learned first Appellate Court. This submission cannot be accepted. The evidence produced by both the parties has been discussed by the learned first Appellate Court in paras 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the Judgment. The findings recorded by the first Appellate Court are based on evidence. There is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and therefore the same is hereby dismissed with costs. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.