IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 112 OF 2008 SHRI FREDERICO D\'SOUZA AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus SHRI MICHAEL D\'SOUZA ALIAS MIGUEL JUSTINO D\'SOUZA THEIR ATTORNEY AND 5 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. S. Vales,Advocate for the appellants. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 15th July, 2009 P.C. Heard Mr. S.Vales for the appellants. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2008 passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.52/2007 partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2007 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.264/2000/B. 2. The appellants filed the above suit against the respondents seeking declaration that the Inventory Proceeding No.5/85 dated 27.12.1985 be declared null and void and for order of demolition of the house constructed in the suit property. The Trial Court decreed the suit in toto. In appeal preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the Lower Appellate Court maintained the decree in so far as declaration is concerned but set aside the decree in so far as the demolition of the house is concerned. The Lower Appellate Court held that the appellants were guilty of delay and laches and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to demolish the house, which was constructed at the costs of 31,59,500/-. 3. Mr. Vales, the learned Counsel submitted that once the order dated 27.12.1985 was declared null and void, the Lower Appellate Court could not have set aside the direction in so far as the demolition of the house is concerned and, therefore, the Lower Appellate Court has committed jurisdictional error in partly allowing the appeal. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court to the extent it sets aside the order of demolition of the house is liable to be set aside. 4. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, I find that no case is made out by the appellants for the admission of the appeal in as much as no substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal. In my opinion, the Lower Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the relief of demolition of the house granted by the Trial Court having regard to the fact that the evidence led by the defendants clearly shows that in the construction of the house, the defendants had incurred an expenditure of Rs.31,59,500/-. In my opinion, it would be inequitable to grant such relief in favour of the appellants. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal, hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA