Judgment : By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 30th April, 1998 passed by Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao by which Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1993/I has been dismissed. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred by the present appellants against order dated 1st October, 1993 dismissing Regular Civil Suit no.1582 of 1960 has been dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 2. Civil Suit No. 5847 of 1950 was filed by Smt. Brigida da Silva Antao, the predecessor of respondent nos. 1 to 3 in respect of the property “Raurilem”. In the said suit which was filed under Portuguese Law, the plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining late Baldomero Rebelo from interfering with the possession in respect of the suit property and application for temporary injunction was also filed in the said suit which was granted pursuant to which certain coconut trees existing in the suit property were enjoyed by the plaintiff therein. 3. The appellants filed the application which was registered as suit no.1582 of 1960 seeking accounts in respect of period from 30th July, 1959 to 18th November, 1971 on the ground that the defendants had illegally enjoyed the fruits of coconut trees existing in the suit property to which the plaintiffs were entitled. Learned trial Court by order dated 1st October, 1993 dismissed the suit on the ground that the accounts sought ought to have been sought within three years from 18 th November, 1971. Miscellaneous Civil Appeal was preferred against the said order to the District Court, South Goa, Margao, which was made over to Additional District Judge. 4. Learned Additional District Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation having been filed after three years from 18 November, 1971. 5. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- a. Whether the Courts below failed to appreciate that the period of limitation provided in the Portuguese Civil code is still in force and is applicable and not the period provided in the Indian Limitation Act, 1963? b. Whether at any rate the cause of action in the present case herein having arisen prior to coming into force of the Indian Limitation Act, the period of limitation provided in the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable? 6. Mr. b. Whether at any rate the cause of action in the present case herein having arisen prior to coming into force of the Indian Limitation Act, the period of limitation provided in the Portuguese Civil Code is applicable? 6. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for accounts on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. Learned counsel further submitted that since initially cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs which was prior to coming into force of Limitation Act, the Portuguese Law was applicable and as such, the order passed by the trial Court which has been confirmed by lower appellate Court holding that the suit is barred by limitation, is patently unsustainable in law. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that both the Courts ought not to have dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation and ought to have decided the suit on merits. 7. Per contra, Ms. T. Colaco, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 supported the impugned judgment, decree and order and submitted that no fault can be found with both the Courts below in holding that the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs was barred by limitation. Learned counsel further submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was totally misconceived on two grounds namely that the suit for accounts was not maintainable and suit ought to have been filed seeking compensation on the ground that the plaintiffs were illegally deprived of right to enjoy the fruits of coconut trees by the defendants by obtaining an order from the Court by misrepresenting the facts and circumstances and secondly on the ground that the plaintiffs ought to have filed separate suit seeking appropriate relief and not a suit in the previously instituted suit instituted by the defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 1582/1960 or by plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 5847 of 1950. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the objections taken on behalf of respondent no. 3 deserve to be accepted. 8. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the objections taken on behalf of respondent no. 3 deserve to be accepted. In my considered view, having regard to the fact that the plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 5847 of 1950 had enjoyed the fruits of coconut trees in the suit property pursuant to the order passed by competent Court, a suit for accounts simpliciter was not maintainable and appropriate prayer ought to have been prayer for compensation. Moreover, after coming into force of Civil Procedure Code, the appellants could not have filed an application which was treated as a suit in the civil Suit No. 5847/1950 filed by the predecessor of respondent nos.1 to 3. In my considered view, on both these grounds, the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. Therefore, I do not deem it necessary to decide the substantial questions of law formulated at the time of admission of the appeal. 9. In view of the above discussion, Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs.