1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 944 OF 2008 AND SECOND APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2009 Shri Socorro Fernandes .... Applicant V/s Shri Chandrakant Arondekar & Anr. .... Respondents Mr. C.A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Applicant. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 26/02/2009 ORAL ORDER : Heard Shri Coutinho, the learned Counsel on behalf of the applicant. The delay is only of one day. The same is condoned. Let Second Appeal be registered forthwith. 2. This is plaintiff's Second Appeal arising from RCS No. 168/2003/II. The defendants have their house in Chalta No. 96. The plaintiff purchased Chalta No. 97 by sale deeds dated 16/02/1996, 9/09/1998, 11/11/1998 and 10/05/2004 from its previous owners. Shri Coutinho, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that what was purchased by the plaintiff was undivided rights by the said sale deeds from its previous owners. The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendants for demolition of an illegal construction of a shed/room admeasuring 7 sq. mts. with the allegation that the same was carried out by the defendants in the last week of April, 2 2002. The defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, contending that the said shed/room was existing for more than 50 years and was exclusively possessed and enjoyed by them as their own. There is no doubt that the plaintiff has been held to be the owner of the property surveyed under Chalta No. 97 pursuant to the said sale deeds. The plaintiff did not examine, the previous owners. However, both the Courts below have given concurrent finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the said shed/room was constructed by the defendant on or about the time it was alleged to have been constructed. The corollary of that finding, in the light of the evidence led by the defendants, would be that the defendants have been in possession and enjoyment of the same as pleaded by them for over 50 years. The learned first appellate Court, inter alia, has concluded that since the suit was for mandatory injunction, the same ought to have been filed within 3 years from the date of cause of action and that not having been done by the plaintiff, the suit was bound to fail. Once it is held that the defendants were in possession of the suit property with shed/room for over 50 years, the very suit for recovery of possession filed by the plaintiff ought to have been barred. 3. Based on evidence produced by the parties, the Courts below have correctly decided the controversy between the parties. In the light of that, in my view, there are no substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal, either as formulated by the plaintiff or otherwise. Consequently, the 3 Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-