IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2009 MR. ARISTIDES JOSE FRANCISCO CAIUS DA SILVA (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Appellant Versus SHRI. VINCENT FERNANDES ... Respondent Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Korgaonkar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Joseph S. Vaz, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 22nd February, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this second appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 30th September, 2008 passed by the District Judge- III, North Goa, Panaji in Regular Civil Appeal No.27/2008 dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 28th February, 2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa in Regular Civil Suit No.146/1989/C. 3. The appellants are the plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant in the above suit filed seeking the following reliefs : (a) The defendant be directed to demolish the suit constructions and keep the necessary setback as per law from the Northern boundary of the suit property. (b) The defendant be directed to demolish the encroachment done in the suit property by constructing the Tank and restore the land to its original state and condition. (c) The defendant be directed to close the window admeasuring 50 x 50 cms. opening towards the Northern side of the suit property. (d) The defendant be perpetually restrained from doing any construction of whatsoever nature in the suit property. (e) The defendant be perpetually restrained from trespassing in the suit property or interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property in any manner whatsoever. 3. The trial Court upon appreciation of evidence held against the plaintiffs and held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that they were co-owners in the lawful possession of the suit property and that there was construction carried out in the suit property or that any construction was carried out by the defendants in their own property illegally. 4. In the appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had proved their title to the suit property. However, the appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were not successful in proving that there was encroachment in the suit property. 5. Having heard Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vaz, learned Counsel for the respondent, I am of the considered opinion that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned decree. It cannot be said that the finding recorded by the lower appellate Court are not borne out from the evidence on record. It cannot be the finding given by the appellate Court based on no evidence warranting interference in Second Appeal. The view taken by the lower appellate Court is a probable view. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order in Second Appeal. 6. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA