A substantial question of law must be based on pleadings and sustainable findings of fact.

JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard T. Sequeira for the Appellants and Mr. V. P. Thali who appears along with Mr. Rajdeep Prabhugaonkar for the Respondent.

2. The appellants are the original defendants and the respondent is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.189/1996/C instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division at Mapusa (Trial Court). Accordingly, for this Second Appeal, the parties will be referred to by their original positions before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff, by instituting the aforesaid Suit prayed for the following reliefs:

a) That the defendants their agents representatives or any other person acting on their behalf be restrained by way of permanent injunction from doing any construction within a distance of 1.5 meters from the boundary of the suit property in any manner whatsoever.

b) That the defendants their agents, representatives, servants, family members or any other person acting for an on their behalf be restrained by way of permanent injunction from occupying any structure illegally constructed and thereby interfere with the privacy of the plaintiff to enjoy and possess the suit property.

c) Any other relief the court deems fit and proper.

Add prayer (d): That the defendants be directed to demolish the whole construction done or in the alternation so much of the construction that violates the set-backs stipulated in the law on the boundary line to the east, west and northern sides of the property of the defendants and restore the land to its original condition.

4. The defendants denied the case pleaded by the plaintiff. They claimed that they have not put up any construction at all and that the construction at the site was existing since the year 1974. The defendants, therefore, pleaded that since there was no new construction, there was no question of any violation of the setback rule. The defendants also raised a counterclaim and sought for the demolition of certain constructions put up by the plaintiff, which, according to the defendants, violated the set-back rule requiring a setback of 3 meters.

5. The Trial Court, framed the following issues in the Suit:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is co-owner in possession of the Suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from doing construction within distance of 1.5 meters from the boundary of the suit property?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for permanent injunction from occupying any structure illegally and interfering with privacy of the plaintiff to enjoy and possess the suit property?

4. Whether the defendants prove that, this Hon'ble Court has no jurisdiction to try the issue?

5. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff has no locus standi to File the suit and is suffering from delay and latches?

6. What order? what Relief?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants in April 1997 illegally completed the suit construction without leaving proper set back?"

2. What Relief? What order?"

6. The learned Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2009 dismissed both the suit as well as the counterclaim with costs.

7. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, North Goa at Panaji (First Appellate Court) vide Regular Civil Appeal No.12/2010. The defendants did not prefer any cross-appeal or cross-objections against the dismissal of their counterclaim.

8. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 28.12.2010, the First Appellate Court partly decreed the plaintiff's Suit by making the following Order:

" ORDER

Appeal is allowed with costs.

Suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (d).

The defendants are hereby directed to demolish the construction done within 1.5 metres from the southern boundary of the suit property.

The defendants are further restrained by way of permanent injunction from doing any construction within a distance of 1.5 metres from the boundary of the plaintiff's property."

9. Aggrieved by the impugned Jud