IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2010 SMT. VIBHAVARI VITHAL BAKRE AND ANR. ... Appellant Versus SHRI KRISHNA BABLO NAIK (SINCE DEC) THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS ... Respondent Mr. N.K. Sawaikar, Advocate for the appellants Mr. R. G. Ramani, Advocate for respondent nos.1((a) to (f) & 2(a)to(d) (g) and (h). Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 11th October, 2010 Oral Order Heard Mr. N.K. Sawaikar,learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Advocate for respondent nos.1((a) to (f) & 2(a) to (d),(g) and (h). 2. This Second Appeal is preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 16.4.2009 passed by the District Judge-III, North Goa Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal no. 37/2008 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants herein against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Valpoi in Regular Civil Suit no. 1/1998 has been dismissed. 3. The appellants herein filed a suit against the defendants/respondent for declaration that defendants are not the tenants and also for permanent injunction. The defendants claimed that they were the tenants of the suit property. 4. According to the defendants they were declared as tenants by concerned Mamlatdar which order was maintained by the Deputy Collector. In view of this settled position, both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the defendants seeking negative declaration and injunction. 5. In any case in view of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Madhumati Atchut Parab Vs. Rajaram V. Parab, reported in (2009)4 SCC 183, the trial Court could not have given negative declaration that the defendants were not the tenants of the property which was an agricultural property. 6. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the above appeal. In any case no substantial question of law is involved in the matter. Hence the Appeal stands dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn