JUDGMENT A.P. Lavande. J .- 1. Heard Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and Decree dated 15th December, 2005, passed by the Additional District Judge. Panaji in Civil Suit No. 49/86, whereby the suit filed by the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiffs") against the respondent/defendant has been dismissed. 3. The parties in this appeal shall hereinafter, be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs filed the above suit seeking declaration that plaintiff No. 1 is the owner of the suit properties described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. The plaintiffs further sought a declaration that the inquiry proceedings held by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records in Case No. IS&LR/ENQ/ A.L./8/82 and also the order passed by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records on 20.11.1982 are null and void. 5. On 3.3.1982. the defendant filed an application under Section 14(3) of the Goa. Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code. 1968 ("the Code" for short) to conduct an inquiry in respect of the suit properties. The Inspector of Survey and Land Records held an inquiry under Section 14(3) of the Code after issuing notices calling upon all the concerned interested parties to appear before him to put-forth their claim. One Shri G.L. Pednekar. Head Surveyor of Directorate of Land Survey. Panaji was appointed to defend the Government interest on behalf of the Director of Land Survey. Panaji who appeared before the Inspector of Survey and Land Records. It appears that said Shri Pednekar gave no objection for recording the name of the defendant in the survey records and consequently by Order dated 20.11.1982, the Inspector of Survey and Land Records declared that the suit b properties belonged to the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that copy of the said order was not served on the plaintiffs as required in terms of Goa. Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Inquiry into Title of Land) Rules. 1969. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that they got the knowledge of the said order only in the last week of October. 1985. Thereafter, they applied for a certified copy of the order on 1.11.1985 and the same was delivered to them on 20.11.1985. Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Inquiry into Title of Land) Rules. 1969. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that they got the knowledge of the said order only in the last week of October. 1985. Thereafter, they applied for a certified copy of the order on 1.11.1985 and the same was delivered to them on 20.11.1985. It has also been pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiffs had also filed an appeal to the Superintendent of Survey and Land Record. Panaji under Section 188(1)(c) of the Code, along with an application for condonation of delay. 6. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing written statement. In the written statement the defendant inter alia raised the issue of limitation. 7. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues : 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the order dated 20.11.82 given by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records in case No. LR/ENQ/A.L./8/82 declaring that the suit properties were belonging to the defendant is ab inito null and void? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties continued to be the properties of the then Portuguese Government and that after 19.12.1961 the same became the property of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for a declaration that the said Order dated 20.11.1982 is null and void? 4. Whether the defendant proves that the orchards and the lands where the said convents are standing were never declared as ancient Monuments? 5. Whether the defendants prove that they have the ownership, control and possession of the suit properties? 5.a Whether the defendant proves that this suit is barred by law of limitation? 8. Learned Trial Court recorded a finding against the plaintiffs in respect of Issue No. 5-a and held that the suit filed was barred by a limitation in terms of Section 14(4) of the Code. Learned Trial Court also recorded findings against the plaintiffs, on merits. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and Decree, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 10. Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on the issue of limitation is patently perverse and. Therefore, the impugned judgment and Decree is liable to be set aside. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and Decree, the plaintiffs have filed the present appeal. 10. Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on the issue of limitation is patently perverse and. Therefore, the impugned judgment and Decree is liable to be set aside. In order to buttress his submission, learned Counsel brought to our notice the pleadings in the plaint, as well as the evidence led by the plaintiffs to establish that the plaintiffs had notice of the order dated 20.11.1982 only in the last week of October. 1985 and as such the suit which was filed on 23.10.1986 was well within the period of limitation i.e. one year as provided under Section 14(4) of the Code. Mr. Amonkar, therefore submitted that the issue of limitation ought to have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs. No other contention was advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs. 11. Per contra, Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-defendant submitted that the suit filed was essentially under Section 14(4) of the Code and the mere fact that a declaration as to the title to the suit properties is sought by the plaintiffs, would not change the nature of the suit. Mr. Coelho Pereira further submitted that in view of the order dated 20.11.1982 passed by the Inspector of Survey and Land Records, declaring title in favour of the defendant it was necessary for the plaintiffs to challenge the said order by filing a suit within a period of one year from the date of the order in terms of Section 14(4) of the Code. In support of his submissions. Mr. Coelho Pereira relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of N. V. Srinivasa Murthy and others v. Mariyamma (dead) by proposed LRs. and others, (2005) 5 SCC 548 . In the alternative. Mr. Coelho Pereira submitted that in any event, the plaintiffs have not led any evidence to demonstrate that they had no knowledge about the order dated 20.11.1982 till last week of October, 1985 inasmuch as the plaintiffs have not led any evidence in that regard to justify the delay on their part. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and Decree. 12. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submitted that no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and Decree. 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the record and the judgment relied upon on behalf of the defendant. 13. In view of the rival submissions the only point which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs was within the period of limitation? 14. Indisputably, the Inspector of Survey and Land Records a passed order under Section 14(3) of the Code on 20.11.1982 and the suit was filed on 23/10/1986. No doubt the plaintiffs also chose to file an appeal against the said order along with an application for condonation of delay, and it is an admitted position that the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned and the proceedings have been stayed till the decision in Civil Suit No. 49/1986. We fail to understand as to how the appellants could have pursued simultaneously two remedies by way of an appeal as well as by way of a suit as in our opinion having regard to the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Code against an order passed by the competent authority i.e. the Inspector of Survey and Land Records under Section 14(3) of the Code the party aggrieved can either file a suit or an appeal. Be that as it may in the present case the plaintiffs have chosen to resort to both the remedies and in our opinion having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the plaintiffs it would not be necessary for us to go into the merits of the matter. 15. In so far as the issue of limitation is concerned the suit, admittedly, has been filed after a period of almost 4 years from the date of the order. Section 14(4) of the Code provides that any person c aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit to contest the order within a period of one year from the date of such order and the decision of the civil Court shall be binding on the parties. Section 14(4) of the Code provides that any person c aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (3) or in appeal or revision therefrom may institute a civil suit to contest the order within a period of one year from the date of such order and the decision of the civil Court shall be binding on the parties. Having regard to the plain language of Section 14(4) of the Code in our opinion the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the suit filed on 23.10.1986 was barred by limitation cannot be said to be either illegal or contrary to the evidence on record. No doubt, in para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have made a statement that the plaintiffs got knowledge of the order dated 20.11.1982 in the last week of October. 1985 d (inadvertently mentioned as 1982. instead of 1985), but the plaintiffs have not led any cogent evidence to prove this aspect. 16. The plaintiffs examined PW 1 Janumala V. Rao, who at the time of his deposition in the year 2000. was serving as Deputy Superintending Archaeologist in Archaeological Survey of India. Goa Circle. In his examination-in-chief. PW 1 stated that plaintiff No.2 i.e. Superintending Archaeologist, Archaeological Survey of India, Aurangabad Circle. Bibi - K.A. Maqbara. Aurangabad came to know about the order dated 20.11.1982 in the last week of October. 1985. This evidence is obviously hear-say and. as such cannot be relied upon. No doubt, in the cross examination on behalf of the defendant he claimed that he came to know about the said order in October, 1985. However, we find it extremely difficult to place reliance upon his testimony inasmuch as there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that in the year 1986 he was functioning either as Deputy Superintending Archaeologist in Archaeological Survey of India or was holding any post in Archaeological Survey of India, Goa Circle, a Therefore there is absolutely no evidence placed on record on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of their plea that the plaintiffs came to know about the order dated 20.11.1982 in the last week of October, 1985. 17. In the plaint, the order dated 20.11.1982 was also assailed on the ground that Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Inquiry into Title of Land) Rules. 1969 which are mandatory had not been complied with and. 17. In the plaint, the order dated 20.11.1982 was also assailed on the ground that Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue (Inquiry into Title of Land) Rules. 1969 which are mandatory had not been complied with and. as such the order dated 20.11.1982 is liable to be quashed and set aside. However, perusal of the evidence led on behalf of the b plaintiffs discloses that the plaintiffs have absolutely not led any evidence in support of their contention taken in the plaint and. as such the plaintiffs have not been able to establish that the order dated 20.11.1982 is liable to be quashed and set aside. 18. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-defendant that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was essentially under Section 14(4) of the Code and the mere fact that the plaintiffs had claimed declaration in the suit would not change the nature of the suit. In our view, unless the c plaintiffs are successful in challenging the order passed under Section 14(3) of the Code, the suit simplicitor for declaration regarding title of the suit properties would not be maintainable. 19. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge that the suit filed by the plaintiffs was barred by limitation cannot be faulted, Consequently the judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court dismissing the suit, cannot be also faulted. 20. Since, no arguments have been advanced on merits of the matter we do not deem it necessary to go into the same. 21. In the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed, However, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.