F.M. Reis, J.-Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the respondents.

2. Both the above Appeals have been taken up for hearing together as the impugned judgment in both the Appeals is the same passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 80/07 by learned District Judge-1. Panaji, dated 18.11.2008.

3. Admit, on the following substantial questions of law:

(a) As the finding on the plea of limitation has attained finality having been maintained on account of non-reversal in appeal, the suit stands dismissed. Therefore, the entire order of the Appellate Court stands vitiated [or not having examined this aspect at all?

(b) Whether the First Appellate Court could have proceeded to dismiss the Suit of the appellants in respect of the prayer for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, without discussing the evidence on record by concurring with the conclusion drawn by the Trial Court and that too, without appreciating the evidence on record?

4. Heard forthwith finally with the consent of both the Counsel. The learned Counsel for the respondent in both the Appeals waives service.

5. The parties shall be referred in the manner as they appear in the cause title in Regular Civil Suit No. 89/1997.

6. The appellants in Second Appeal No. 61/2009 are the Defendants in the said suit whereas the appellants in Second Appeal No. 62/2009 are the plaintiffs therein. The plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the Will dated 04.12.1986 was null and void and for permanent and mandatory injunction against the Defendants. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No. 1 arid the Defendant No. 1 are brothers and that the plaintiff No. 2 and Defendant No. 2 are their respective spouses. It is further their case that the property surveyed under chalta No. 36 to 39 of P.T. Sheet No. 116 of Mapusa City, having an area of 744 square metres. originally belongs to late Shankar Barde father and father in law of the plaintiffs and the Defendants. It is further their contention that the said suit property was purchased by late Shankar Barde in the year 1949 and that he was married under the law of communion of assets to late Indumati Barde, who expired on 16.11.1985. Thereafter, that by fraud. the Defendant No. 1 got a Will executed in his favour dated 4.12.1986, whereby the said late Shankar Barde bequeathed the suit property and the suit common house in favour of the Defendant No.1. They further state that on the basis of the said Will, the Defendants had illegally put up a construction in the suit property and, consequently, the suit came to be filed to declare the Will dated 04.12.1986 as null and void as well as for mandatory injunction to demolish the construction put up by them.

7. The suit was resisted by the Defendants alleging that the plaintiffs have no right to the suit property and the structure therein and that the same was being enjoyed openly, peacefully and lawfully by the Defendants from the date of the Will dated 04.12.1986. Though a they admitted that the property belonged to late Shankar Barde, nevertheless, they claimed that the plaintiff had consented to the Will when the same was executed and disputed the contention that any new construction was put up by them. The Defendants also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

8. The learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Mapusa, after recording of evidence and framing the issues, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the Will was executed in accordance with law and that the suit property b was not an ancestral property. The learned Judge further held that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had knowledge about the said Will and no claim was put up by the plaintiffs within the time prescribed. The learned Judge further held that the Defendants had not carried out any illegal construction. Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed. The Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs before the learned District