JUDGMENT The above Writ Petition interalia seeks for a Writ of Certiorari to quash and set aside an order dated 07.11.2008 at Exhibit A passed by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Quepem in Execution Application No. 6/78/B. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the mother of the petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 Smt. Rukmini Prabhu Alvenkar and the petitioner no. 1, her son along with other petitioners instituted Civil Suit No. 32/1968 in the Court of Civil Judge at Quepem against the predecessor of the present respondents and four other respondents for the relief that the deed of sale dated 28.12.1965 executed between defendant nos. 3 to 5 in the said suit as vendors and defendant no.2 Ananta as purchaser be declared as null and void. The claim in the said suit was in respect of the property denominated as “Xir” which was described and identified in the plaint as being described in the Land Registration Office and also inscribed in the Taluka Revenue Office. The suit was contested by the original defendant no.2 in the said suit inter-alia not disputing the boundaries of the property “Xir” claimed by the ancestors of the petitioners, but however, disputed the claim of the petitioner stating that the property “Xir” was only for paddy cultivation and not for plantation of the coconut trees. The learned Judge after framing issues and recording evidence decreed the suit inter-alia declaring the deed of sale as null and void and also granting a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property “Xir”. Apparently, a First Appeal was preferred before the Appellate Court being First Civil Appeal No. 170/1970 challenging the decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 19.10.1970 which came to be dismissed by judgment dated 10.04.1972. The respondents preferred Second Appeal before this Court being Second Appeal No. 8/1972 which also came to be dismissed. Thereafter, an execution application was filed by the said mother of the petitioners Smt. Rukmini Prabhu Alvenkar before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Quepem, being Execution Application No. 61 78 contending that there was breach of the order of the permanent injunction granted in favour of the petitioners herein. The respondents in the said proceedings objected to the said application. The respondents in the said proceedings objected to the said application. The Executing Court passed an order dated 11.01.1979 rejecting the objection raised by the judgment debtor inter-alia holding that the property “Xirantilbhat” falls within the boundaries of the property “Xir”. The respondents preferred Civil Revision Application No. 214/1985 before this Court which came to be disposed of by an order dated 01.07.1986 inter-alia holding that the inquiry would have to be conducted to determine the boundary line separating the property “Xir” with the property “Xirantilbhat”. Consequently, the Executing Court after holding such inquiry as directed by this Court, by the impugned order dated 07.11.2008 disposed the execution proceedings inter-alia coming to the conclusion that neither the petitioners nor the respondents had produced any sufficient material to determine the boundary line between the properties “Xir” and “Xirantilbhat”. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Executing Court, the petitioners have preferred the above Writ Petition. 3. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has assailed the impugned order essentially on the ground that the learned Executing Court has failed to comply with the directions of this Court while disposing of Civil Revision Application No. 214/85 whereby there was specific directions to determine the boundary line between the property claimed by the respondents “Xirantilbhat” and the property claimed by the petitioners known as “Xir”. The learned counsel further pointed out that the exercise directed by this Court was essentially a relief in the nature of demarcating the property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents. The learned counsel further pointed out that the petitioners have adduced sufficient material on record consisting of report of the commissioner as well as the other evidence to establish the boundary line separating the two properties. The learned counsel further submits that the Executing Court was not justified to pass the impugned order and hold that there was no material on record to establish the boundary line separating the two properties. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously discarded the report of the commissioner produced by the petitioners which conclusively establishes the boundary line between the property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents. The learned counsel has taken me through the impugned order and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously discarded the report of the commissioner produced by the petitioners which conclusively establishes the boundary line between the property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioners have also adduced evidence to establish that the property claimed by the petitioners was in their possession which is also a material circumstance to be considered for the purpose of demarcating the boundary line between two adjoining properties. The learned counsel as such submits that there is a jurisdictional error committed by the learned Judge in not demarcating the property in accordance with the directions issued by this Court and as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that there is no cogent evidence adduced by the petitioners to establish that they are in possession of the suit property nor any material for the Court to establish the boundary line between the property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that as the burden to establish the boundary line was cast on the petitioners, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish that the boundary line separating the two properties is the one claimed by the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that though it is not in dispute that the property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents is adjoining one another nevertheless, the petitioners have failed to adduce any material to assist the Court to constitute such boundary. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the respondents have examined a commissioner who has depicted the property claimed by the respondents “Xirantilbhat” which according to the respondents belongs to the respondents and is in their possession. The learned Senior Counsel as such submits that considering that no material has been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim, the learned Executing Court was justified to pass the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel as such points out that the above. petition deserves to be rejected. 5. The learned Senior Counsel as such submits that considering that no material has been produced by the petitioners to substantiate their claim, the learned Executing Court was justified to pass the impugned order. The learned Senior Counsel as such points out that the above. petition deserves to be rejected. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and with the assistance of the learned Counsel I have also gone through the records. Before going into the aspect as to whether the Executing Court has complied with the directions of this Court while disposing of Civil Revision Application No. 214/85, it would be appropriate to note that this Court while disposing of the said Revision Application has observed at para 2 thus: “2......................1 find that the property “Xir” has been registered in the Land Registration Office in the year 1882 and the western boundary thereof is given as a rivulet. The same property is said to be enrolled in the Land Revenue Office under No. 167. The boundaries given to the said property in the Land Revenue Office are on the east by the aqueduct and Xirticana ortemtican of Bascora Arba Sinay Narcornim of Bali, on the west by the drain and Xirantil Bhat of Nillu Esso Follo and others, on the north by Xirticana Ortemtican of the above mentioned Xembu, Nacodbad Gorbatta first parcel of Anta Arba Sinay Narcomim and others and Xirnocodbat and the said property Xirantil Bhat of Nillu Esso Folio and on the south by the drain and the property Xirantil Bhat referred to above. Then, the property “Xirantil Bhat” belonging to the petitioner is registered in the Land Registration Office under No. 26735 and enrolled in the Land Revenue Office under No. 168. The boundaries given in the Land Registration and in the Revenue Office of the said “Xirantil Bhat” fully tally with the boundaries given to the property “Xir” in the Land Revenue Office and it would appear that the said property “Xirantil Bhat” is bounded on three sides by the property “Xir” and on one side by the rivulet. The boundaries given in the Land Registration and in the Revenue Office of the said “Xirantil Bhat” fully tally with the boundaries given to the property “Xir” in the Land Revenue Office and it would appear that the said property “Xirantil Bhat” is bounded on three sides by the property “Xir” and on one side by the rivulet. This aspect of the case which flows from the documentary evidence was apparently not appreciated by both the Courts below and therefore, they also failed to appreciate that an inquiry was required in order to lay down the boundary line between the properties “Xir” of the respondent and the property “Xirantil Bhat” of the petitioner. This being the case, the learned District Judge committed an error which touches jurisdiction and justifies the interference of this Court in exercise of its revisional powers." 6. On plain reading of the observations of this Court referred to herein above, the matter was essentially remanded to the learned Executing Court to lay down the boundary line between the property 'Xir" of the petitioners and the property “Xirantilbhat” of the respondents. This itself shows that the exercise to be carried out by the learned Executing Court was essentially to demarcate the boundary line separating the said two properties. 7. On going through the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, J find that the learned Judge has proceeded to identify the property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents as shown in the title document without attempting to fix the boundary line separating the property claimed by the petitioners known as “Xir” and the property “Xirantilbhat” as claimed by the respondents in accordance with the direction of this Court while disposing of the said Civil Revision Application. The learned Executing Court has found discrepancy in the boundaries as shown in the land registration document and matriz records without making an attempt to locate the boundary line demarcating the two properties. The record reveals that the petitioners have produced a plan at Exhibit p.140 depicting the property claimed by the petitioners and the property allegedly belonging to the respondents. The respondents on the other hand have also produced a plan at Exhibit 159 to advance their contention with regard to the location of the said properties. The record reveals that the petitioners have produced a plan at Exhibit p.140 depicting the property claimed by the petitioners and the property allegedly belonging to the respondents. The respondents on the other hand have also produced a plan at Exhibit 159 to advance their contention with regard to the location of the said properties. Though it is submitted by Shri Usgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that there is also evidence adduced by the parties with regard to their respective possession of the portion of the property claimed by them nevertheless, I find no discussion on that count has been resorted to by the learned Executing Court. The document of title produced by the parties, no doubt, suggest the boundary limit separating the property “Xir” and “Xirantilbhat”. The location of the said boundary limit is a sole issue which ought to be considered by the Executing Court. Such exercise of demarcation has to be complied with by following the provisions of Articles 2340, 2341 and 2342 of the Portuguese Civil Code and other relevant provisions of law which stipulate the manner in which the exercise of demarcation between the two adjoining properties is to be performed. On going through the impugned order passed by the Executing Court, I find that the Executing Court has not carried out the exercise as contemplated in law to demarcate the boundary line as directed by this Court in the said order while disposing of the said Civil Revision Application. Articles 2340, 2341 and 2342 of the Portuguese Civil Code as translated reads thus :- “Article 2340. The owner and likewise any usufructuary or possessor in his own name, has the right to compel the owners of adjoining properties to concur for the demarcation of respective limits between his property and those of other. Article 2341. The demarcation shall be done in conformity of the title of each of them and in the absence of sufficient titles required for the purpose as per the limits established by possession of contiguous land. Article 2342. Where the titles do not establish limits or the area belonging to each owner, and the controversy cannot be decided based on possession, or by any other means before the Court the demarcation shall be done distributing the land subject of dispute, equally. 8. Article 2342. Where the titles do not establish limits or the area belonging to each owner, and the controversy cannot be decided based on possession, or by any other means before the Court the demarcation shall be done distributing the land subject of dispute, equally. 8. Hence, the said provisions clearly provide the demarcation of the properties separating one another is to be initially carried out on the basis of the respective titles and in case material on that count is not sufficient it can even proceed on the basis of their respective possessions. Even in case, the material on record is not sufficient to establish the said aspect, the Court can even proceed in terms of Article 2342 of the Portuguese Civil Code. All these aspects will have to be re-examined by the Executing Court on the basis of material on record. Both the learned counsel have pointed out that there is sufficient material produced on record to establish their respective contentions in the inquiry conducted by the Executing Court. Hence, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned order and come to the conclusion that the material on record was not sufficient to identify their respective properties. The exercise to be conducted by the Executing Court is to demarcate the boundary line between the said property claimed by the petitioners and the respondents in terms of the directions issued by this Court while disposing of Civil Revision Application No. 214/85. As such, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Quepem, would have to consider the matter afresh on the basis of the material on record in the light of the observations made herein above. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following order : ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 07.11.2008 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Quepem is directed to re-assess the evidence on record and demarcate the boundary line between the property “Xir” claimed by the petitioners and “Xirantilbhat” claimed by the respondents in the light of the observations made herein above after hearing the parties in accordance with law. (iii) Rule is made absolute in above terms. (iv) Parties are directed to appear before the learned Executing Court on 29th July, 2013 at 10.00 a.m. and abide by further directions of the Court. Ordered accordingly.