IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 23 OF 2008 MR. PEDRO FRANCISCO COSTA AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus SMT. ROSA DE COSTA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares,Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 17th February, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This is a second appeal filed by the defendant against whom the decree of injunction, has been passed, which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 2. It is the case of the plaintiffs/ respondents that they have an easementary right of access in the property belonging to the defendants which according to them was used by them for the past more than 30 years before the institution of the suit. 3. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that there has been no use of the access for more than 30 years and the plaintiffs had not acquired any easementary right as such. It was also contended by the defendants that the plaintiffs have an alternate way available which they can make use of. 4. The learned Judge of the Trial Court by judgment dated 10.02.2006, found as a fact that the way that is claimed by the plaintiffs, was being used by the plaintiffs for the past more than 30 years without any interruption and that they have, therefore, acquired an easementary right. The learned Judge negatived the contention of the defendants that the plaintiffs were using the passage through the property of the adjoining owner Mr. Manuel Reveredo, which passage was being used by the people of Ulandi for going to the chapel. Since the learned Judge found that the way was being used by the plaintiffs for more than 30 years, he decreed the suit and an appeal was carried to the District Judge. The Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the Trial Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents. The learned Counsel for the appellants, contends before me that there has been no proper appreciation of the evidence. She had taken me through the evidence of P.W.4. According to her, the evidence of P.W.4 would show that he was only 20 years old and, therefore, he could not depose with regard to user for more than 30 years. That may be the fact, but then, there is other evidence available which has been considered by the learned Judge of the Trial Court and particularly that of the plaintiff. The learned Judge of the Trial Court, as a fact, found that the defendants have not been able to rebut the evidence led by the plaintiffs with regard to user for more than 30 years. He has found that the defendants did not examine any witness residing in the vicinity to disprove what has been sought to be proved by the plaintiffs. 6. The learned Judge of the First Appellate Court also considered the reasoning given by the Trial Court. There are, therefore, two concurrent findings. The learned Counsel for the appellants, could not show what is the perversity in the appreciation of the evidence except for the fact that P.W.4's evidence could not have been accepted. Even if that evidence is kept aside, the other evidence appears to me to be sufficient to hold that there has been user for more than 30 years which was uninterrupted. No substantial question of law is, in fact, involved in this appeal. What was urged before me is a question on facts and on facts it is clear that the way was being used by the plaintiffs for more than 30 years. In the circumstances, the appeal cannot be admitted. It is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA