ANANT GANESH FAL DESSAI (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS. Vs. ADMINISTRATOR OF COMMUNIDADES SOUTH ZONE, COMMUNIDADE BUILDING MARGAO- GOA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Kamat, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. None for respondent no.1, though served. By this Second Appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 20th August, 2009 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge -II, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 17/2009 dismissing the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem in Regular Civil Suit No. 10/2003.

(2.) THE appellants herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the above suit filed seeking reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are owners in possession of the property 'Dhovornecoddil' 'Soropioavolly' or 'Gongueavolly' registered under No. 10658 and surveyed under No. 61 of village Balli and a part of the property bearing Survey No. 15/1 of village Benurdem which admeasures 1,51,400 square metres ( the suit property) has been wrongly surveyed in the name of defendant no.2. The suit was contested by defendant no.2. The plaintiffs examined four witnesses. Defendant no.2 examined two witnesses. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, held that the plaintiffs had not proved that the suit property formed part of the property 'Dhovornecoddil' 'Soropioavolly' or 'Gongueavolly' and that the suit property was also not properly identified. These findings were given upon appreciation of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by both the parties. The lower appellate Court by the impugned decree has dismissed the appeal.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submitted that although the judgment of the lower appellate Court is not happily worded, the finding of the lower appellate Court that the property has not been identified, cannot be faulted. Learned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court has upon critical analysis of the evidence, oral and documentary, led by the parties, has held that the plaintiffs had not proved the title and possession in respect of the suit property which lies in the village Benurdem. Learned Counsel further submitted that the land registration certificate produced by the plaintiffs clearly proves that the property is in village Balli and not in Benurdem. According to learned Counsel, the case set up by the plaintiffs that during recent survey, boundary of village Balli was shifted, cannot be accepted in the absence of cogent evidence having been led by the plaintiffs. Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that no case has been made out for interference with the impugned decree in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C.