IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2007 SHRI. PURSHOTAM YESHWANT FAL DESSAI AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus SMT. SATYAWATI SATARKAR ... Respondent Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 4th April, 2008 ORAL ORDER: Heard Shri Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants. 2. The appellants were the plaintiffs in RCS No. 26/1998. They had filed the said Civil Suit with the allegation that the defendant had encroached upon their property known as "Udkafond" having Land Registration No. 6352, Matriz No. 391 and surveyed under nos. 89, 90/1, 90/2, 90/3, 90/4 and 108 of Village Poinguinim. The defendant had resisted the suit contending that she was residing in the property known as 'Baboiache Saradin' belonging to Yesso alias Babi Fal Dessai of which they had purchased 770 sq. mts. by a sale deed dated 15/01/1991. 3. The learned trial Court by its judgment dated 26/09/2005, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the defendant encroached upon their property in the year 1993 or 1994. In fact it appears that the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed after series of adjournments which are seen reflected in para 8 of the judgment of the learned first appellate Court and in that light, the trial Court had observed that the plaintiff no.2 who had stepped in the witness box but had not made herself available for cross-examination and her evidence had to be closed. The learned trial Court also noted that the plaintiffs had produced no documentary evidence to prove their ownership or possession and proceeded to dismiss the suit. Those findings have been upheld by the learned first appellate Court. On the other hand, the defendant had produced the documents of her title including the said sale deed which was not subject matter of the challenge in the suit, in as much as the seller of the said sale deed was also not made a party to the Civil Suit. The learned first appellate Court also noted that there was no evidence on record to show that the defendant had encroached upon the property of the plaintiffs. In other words, this was the case where the appellants/plaintiffs in the said RCS had miserably failed to prove the case set out by them that the defendant had encroached into their property. Consequently, both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the suit. In my view, the above conclusion has been arrived at concurrently by both the Courts below. There is no question of law, much less a substantial question of law, in this appeal to be entertained. 4. Appeal dismissed in limine. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH