Judgment : Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 278/2004. The Appellant filed the suit on the basis that he is the owner in possession of two properties situated at Village Velim, being 1/48th share of the landed property “Valado de Bapsoro” or “Valado Babsorecho Band” bearing survey no. 341/10 admeasuring 150 square metres with an area of 248 square metres being depicted as water and another portion of the same property bearing Land Registration No. 4364 surveyed under no. 341/11 which have been referred to as suit properties. It is further the case of the Appellant that an area of 113.85 square metres is depicted as water along its western boundary in the plan prepared by the Survey Department and further an area of 248 square metres as in like manner being shown in the water which otherwise form part of the property surveyed under no. 341/10. It is further the case of the Appellant that the said portions have been wrongly shown as water and, consequently, the suit came to be filed to seek rectification of the Survey Records and for a declaration that the said two portions of the property forms part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant. 3. The Respondents filed their written statements opposing the claim put forward by the Appellant and, inter alia, contending that though the Appellant has purchased the two plots bearing survey nos. 341/10 and 341/11, the areas were 150 square metres and 175 square metres beyond which there was no additional land as claimed by the Appellant. It is further their case that the area beyond the said two survey numbers on the western side do not form part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant and, consequently, the Appellant has no right therein. The Respondents as such submitted that there is no error in the depiction in the Land Survey Records and, consequently, prayed that the Appeal be dismissed. The Respondents as such submitted that there is no error in the depiction in the Land Survey Records and, consequently, prayed that the Appeal be dismissed. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Appellant has encroached into the riverine land towards the western side to the extent of 452 square metres by filling it with mud, and consequently, action was sought to be taken against the Appellant. 4. The learned Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.207, dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal. 5. Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Judgment essentially on the ground that the said two area admeasuring 113.85 square metres and 248 square metres form part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant which is surveyed under no. 341/10 and 341/11 respectively. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Appellant has produced the purchase document which shows that the property purchased by the Appellant correspond to the Matriz Records no. 3453 and 3458. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the Sale Deed executed in the year 1978 at exhibit 23 and pointed out that the portion of the property purchased by the Appellant has been duly registered in the Land Registration Office under no. 4364 and inscribed in Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No. 3453 and 3458. Learned Counsel has taken me through the boundaries shown therein and pointed out that both the boundaries as disclosed in the Matriz Record tally with the boundaries of the property purchased by the Appellant by Sale Deed and form part and parcel of the same property and an area of 113.85 square metres and 248 square metres which form part and parcel of the property belong to the Appellant has been shown as water. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Matriz Records at exhibit 24 and pointed out that the records therein disclose that the boundaries towards the southern side of the property under no. 3453 is inscribed as belonging to one Shri Paulo Caiero under no. 3352. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Matriz Records at exhibit 24 and pointed out that the records therein disclose that the boundaries towards the southern side of the property under no. 3453 is inscribed as belonging to one Shri Paulo Caiero under no. 3352. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the northern boundary of the property and pointed out that the northern boundary of the said property is the property inscribed in the Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No.3459 of one Paulo Caiero. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the property inscribed under no. 3452 corresponds to the property surveyed under no. 341/19 whereas the property inscribed under no. 3459 corresponds to the property surveyed under no. 341/2 in the Survey Records. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Plan at exhibit 27 and pointed out that the property surveyed under no.341/19 and the property surveyed under no. 341/2 extend on the western side which beyond the western boundary of the property show to be belonging to the Appellant surveyed under no. 341/10 and 341/11. Learned Counsel as such submits that this itself discloses that the western boundary of the property of the Appellant is beyond the property as disclosed in the Survey Records. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the impugned Judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has discarded the said evidence on only one ground that Matriz records is not a title document which is erroneous in the facts and circumstances of the case. Learned Counsel as such submits that the learned Judge has misappreciated the evidence on record and had come to an erroneous conclusion that the Appellant has failed to establish that the western boundary of the property belonged to the Appellant is beyond as shown in the survey plan. Learned Counsel as such submits that the impugned Judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. On the other hand, Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that the Appellant has failed to produce any evidence on record to establish that the western boundary of the property surveyed under no. 341/10 and 341/11 extend beyond the line as shown in the Survey Records. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that the contention raised by the Appellant based on the Matriz Records bearing no. 341/10 and 341/11 extend beyond the line as shown in the Survey Records. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that the contention raised by the Appellant based on the Matriz Records bearing no. 3353 and 3459 is not a matter which was raised before the learned Trial Judge. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that though the Survey Records disclose that the western boundary of the property surveyed under no. 341/19 and 341/2 extend beyond the western boundary line of the property belonging to the Appellant by itself does not establish that the property of the Appellant also extends to such position. Learned Government Advocate has pointed out that the Appellant has miserably failed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim that the area of 113.85 square metres and 248 square metres which is shown as water, form part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant. The learned Government Advocate has taken me through the Matriz Records alongwith the Land Registration document and pointed out that there is no evidence adduced by the Appellant to show that any portion of the land is wrongly shown in the Survey Records. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly come to the conclusion that the Appellant has failed to establish that the western boundary includes part and parcel of the area shown as water in the Survey Records. Learned Government Advocate as such submits that there is no error committed by the learned Judge and, as such, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the evidence on record, the following point arises for my determination: POINT FOR DETERMINATION 1. Whether the learned Judge was justified to come to the the conclusion that the Appellant has failed to establish that the portion of the property admeasuring 11.85 square metres and an area of 248 square metres did not form part and parcel of the property as claimed by the Appellant? 8. On perusal of the material on record as well as the evidence adduced by the respective parties, it cannot be disputed that the property which has been purchased by the Appellant in two portions pursuant to the Sale Deeds at exhibit 22 and 23 are part and parcel of the same property. 8. On perusal of the material on record as well as the evidence adduced by the respective parties, it cannot be disputed that the property which has been purchased by the Appellant in two portions pursuant to the Sale Deeds at exhibit 22 and 23 are part and parcel of the same property. On perusal of the said Sale Deed it is seen that the property has been described in the Matriz Records under no. 3453 and 3458. In the Sale Deed at exhibit 23 besides the numbers of the said Matriz Records, the property is also shown to be described in Land Registration Office under no. 4364. Both the documents, the Sale Deed and the Matriz Records, also disclose that the portions which have been purchased by the Appellant, form part and parcel of the property which is registered in the Land Registration Officer under no. 4364. Considering the said aspect, it can be accepted that the said two portions which adjoin to one another form part and parcel of the same property. Considering the said aspect, the extent to the property would have to be considered on the basis of the material on record. It cannot be disputed that the properties belonging to Government are not inscribed in the Matriz Records. In such circumstances, once a property is inscribed in the Matriz Records, it has to be assumed that such property does not belong to the Government. In the present case, the Appellant whilst adducing evidence on record, has categorically stated that the property purchased by the Appellant forms part and parcel of the property inscribed under no. 3453 and 3458. In such circumstances, the point which would have to be considered is as to the extent of the property on the basis of the Matriz Records viz a viz the Land Registration document. Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the boundaries in the Land Registration Office do not differ with boundaries in the Matriz records. As such, on the basis of the material on record, the northern boundary of the property is the property inscribed under no. 3459 which belongs to one Shri Paulo Caiero. So also the Southern boundary of the property purchased by the Appellant is the property inscribed under no. 3452 along belonging to one Paulo Caiero. As such, on the basis of the material on record, the northern boundary of the property is the property inscribed under no. 3459 which belongs to one Shri Paulo Caiero. So also the Southern boundary of the property purchased by the Appellant is the property inscribed under no. 3452 along belonging to one Paulo Caiero. Hence, along the whole periphery on the northern and southern boundary of the property of the Appellant, the property of Shri Paulo Caiero is said to be located. On perusal of the report of expert Engineer Shri Pascoal Barbosa Noronha, examined by the Appellants as Pw.2, he has stated that the property on the northern side is surveyed under no. 341/2 and the property on the southern side purchased by the Appellant is the property surveyed under no. 341/19. In such circumstances, on perusal of the plan at exhibit 27, it appears that the western boundary of the property surveyed under no. 314/19 extends much beyond the western boundary of the property surveyed under no. 341/10 and 341/11 which is admittedly purchased by the Appellants. So also, on perusal of the Plan, the northern boundary of the property purchased by the Appellants, is the property surveyed under no. 341/2. On perusal of the Survey Plan at exhibit 27, the western boundary of the property surveyed under no. 341/2 extends much beyond the said two portions of the property purchased by the Appellants under survey nos. 341/10 and 341/11. 9. Shri Salkar, learned Government Advocate, has pointed out that there is no evidence on record to substantiate their claim that such property extends upto the western side of the property surveyed under no. 341/2. Learned Government Advocate further pointed out that there can be structural changes at loco which were existing much earlier. Hence, this aspect would have to be re-appreciated by the Court after considering the evidence on record. On perusal of the impugned Judgment, I find that the learned Judge has not considered the documents at exhibit 24 which not only discloses the boundaries of the property purchased by the Appellant which are inscribed in the Matriz Records no. 3453 and 3458 but also boundaries of the property towards the northern and southern side under Matriz Records bearing no. 3459 and 3452. 3453 and 3458 but also boundaries of the property towards the northern and southern side under Matriz Records bearing no. 3459 and 3452. Non-consideration of the said boundaries and without appreciating the said aspect which would have to be considered in conjunction with the other material on record, has resulted in the learned Judge committing an error whilst appreciating the evidence on record in coming to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish their case that an area of 113.18 square metres and 248 square metres, do not form part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant. The extent of the property in such circumstances is a matter which will have to be adjudicated by the learned Judge after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties. In the interest of justice, I find it appropriate that the learned Judge be directed to decide the said suit afresh. 10. At this stage, Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents, have pointed out that they may want to lead further evidence in support of their rival contentions. As such, liberty is given to the parties to file appropriate application before the learned Judge to adduce further evidence and if any such application is filed, the same shall be considered by the learned Judge in accordance with law. The point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2007 is quashed and set aside. Civil Suit no. 278 of 2004 is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao. (iii) The learned District Judge is directed to decide the said suit afresh after hearing the parties in the light of the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions of the parties on merits are left open. (v) The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. (vi) Parties to appear before the learned Judge on 30.07.2012 at 10.00 a.m.