JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The above Second Appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial questions of law : (i) Whether Courts below erred, misconstrued and misread the documents at Exhibit 40/C passed in Accao de posse Judicial process No.3379/47 of Tribunal da Comarca de Salcete (Auction of judicial possession process No.3379/47 of Civil Judge Senior Division, at Margao) which Order inter alia contain area, boundaries of the property and sketch, the said Judicial process instituted by late Joaquina Benedita Fernandes (Mother of the Appellant No.1) pursuant to the purchase made by her at judicial public Auction thereby affecting the decision of the case on merits. (ii) Whether Courts below erred, misconstrued and misread the Order made in Inventory proceedings bearing No.82/84 of the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Margao which contains inter alia property of the Appellants bearing Land Registration No.35993, inscribed in the name of late mother of the Appellant under No.48895 in the Office of Sub Registrar, Margao, Matriz No.291 and survey No.2/4 and 2/5 of Village Seraulim thereby affecting the decision of the case on merits. (iii) Whether Courts below erred in ignoring, misconstruing and misreading title documents of ownership, possession of the Appellant derived through purchase of the property in judicial public auction, Accao de posse Judicial Process No.3379/47 of Tribunal da Comarca de Salcete, Land Registration document bearing No.35993 of Book B-92 New Series, inscribed under No.48895 in the office of Sub Registrar, Margao in name of the Appellant's mother, Matriz No.291 which property devolved upon the Appellants by inheritance thereby affecting the decision of the case on merits. (iv) Whether the Courts below erred in disallowing the appellants to produce Report and Plan of Eng. Nilesh Laad. 3. Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in support of his contentions with regard to the aforesaid substantial questions of law has pointed out that as per the Court auction proceedings which are at Exhibit 40/C, the northern boundary of the property which has been purchased by the appellants is the property of Roque Menezes which is 44 metres from the existing house located in the property surveyed under No.21 5. The learned counsel further pointed out that on going through the survey plan which is at Exhibit 41/C, the distance from the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.21 4 to the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.2/S is 44 metres. The learned counsel further pointed out that this itself suggest that the property between the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.2/S and the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.2/4 belongs to the appellants. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the documents at Exhibit 401 C as well as the report submitted by the appraisal in the said proceedings and pointed out that there is a specific averment to suggest that the property which is the subject matter of the auction was admeasuring 4239 square metres. The learned counsel further pointed out that this further suggest that the learned Judge while passing the impugned judgment has misconstrued the said documents to come to the conclusion that the appellants have no right to the property surveyed under No.2/4. The learned counsel further pointed out that the property which belongs to the appellants is registered in the Land Registration Office under No.3S993 which shows that the property of the respondents is bounded towards the eastern, western and southern side of the property of Ana Francisca Dias and on the northern side is the property of Roque Menezes. The learned counsel thereafter has taken me through the Land Registration Document of the property purchased by the respondents which is registered under No.21027 at Exhibit 89/C and pointed out that the property of the appellants is shown to be towards the northern and western side and in the names of some other persons. The learned counsel further pointed out that this further establishes that the property claimed by the appellants is part of the property surveyed under No.2/4 which also forms part of the property purchased by the appellants' mother in Court auction. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to take note of the document at Exhibit 40/C on a spacious plea raised by the respondents to the effect that such document was fabricated. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously taken an inference with regard to the fact that the appellant no. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has failed to take note of the document at Exhibit 40/C on a spacious plea raised by the respondents to the effect that such document was fabricated. The learned counsel further pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously taken an inference with regard to the fact that the appellant no. 1 was convicted in criminal case concerning fabrication of documents when there was nothing on record to suggest and/or could be implied from the evidence on record that any such act was committed by the appellant no. 1 in the present dispute. The learned counsel further pointed out that the person who is false in one that is always false cannot be applied in civil proceedings as it is well settled that the civil dispute is decided on preponderance of probabilities. The learned counsel further pointed out that there is no material to show that some documents from the auction proceedings have been misappropriated by the appellants herein. The learned counsel further submitted that the inference drawn by the Courts below on that count is totally misconceived and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel has thereafter taken me through the documents on record especially the judgment passed by the then Appellate Court and pointed out that some third party raised objection with regard to the auction proceedings which came to be rejected by the then Appellate Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants have engaged the services of an expert who unfortunately expired and they desired to examine another commissioner which was refused by the Courts below. The learned counsel further pointed out that in case the relief sought by the respondents in the counter claim is up held, it would result in the situation that the appellants would have no means of access to the main road located towards the eastern side of the property surveyed under No.2/4. Without prejudice to his earlier contention, the learned counsel further pointed out that the appellants are always using the motorable access to go to the main road located on the eastern side. Without prejudice to his earlier contention, the learned counsel further pointed out that the appellants are always using the motorable access to go to the main road located on the eastern side. The learned counsel has taken me through the judgments passed by the Courts below and pointed out that as the documents have been misconstrued, the learned Judge was not justified to pass the impugned judgment and dismiss the suit filed by the appellants and decreed the counter claim. 4. On the other hand, Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that both the Courts below upon appreciating the evidence on record have come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to establish that they have any right to the property surveyed under No.2/4. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that in auction proceedings the appellants have purchased only the portion of the property surveyed under No.2/5 and as such, the appellants had no claim to the property surveyed under No.2/4. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that both the Courts below upon appreciating the evidence on record have come to the conclusion that the respondents are in possession of the disputed portion of the property. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that these concurrent findings of fact cannot be re-appreciated by this Court in the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the substantial questions of law framed by this Court and pointed out that as there is no misconstruction of any documents referred to therein, the question of deciding the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the substantial questions of law framed by this Court and pointed out that as there is no misconstruction of any documents referred to therein, the question of deciding the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants would not arise. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as far as the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants to the effect that the appellants have a motorable access to go to the main road located towards the eastern side of the property surveyed under No.2/4, the learned Senior Counsel upon instructions from the respondents has pointed out that the respondents would reserve an access to the appellants having a width of three metres to go to the main road located towards the eastern side of the property surveyed under No.2/4 facing the main door of the existing house located in the property surveyed under No.2/5. The learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the respondents will not raise any obstruction to such user of access to go to the house of the appellants located in the property surveyed under No.2/5 at Seraulim Village. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter has taken me through the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below and pointed out that there is no case made out by the appellants for any interference in the impugned judgments. The learned 'Senior Counsel as such submits that the substantial questions of law framed by this Court be answered in favour of the respondents and the appeal be accordingly rejected. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the records. On perusal thereof, the suit filed by the appellants was essentially that there is a property in the village of Seraulim which is described in the Land Registration Office of Salcete under No. 35993 of book B-92 new series and enrolled under matriz no. 291 which was originally owned by Francisco Antonio Gonsalves. It is further their case that the said Francisco Antonio Gonsalves died on 29.06.1936 and his wife had predeceased him and they had no issues and as such, the property devolved upon his heirs namely Maria Rita Gonsalves, Maria Piedade Gonsalves and Jose Cristovao Gonsalves. 291 which was originally owned by Francisco Antonio Gonsalves. It is further their case that the said Francisco Antonio Gonsalves died on 29.06.1936 and his wife had predeceased him and they had no issues and as such, the property devolved upon his heirs namely Maria Rita Gonsalves, Maria Piedade Gonsalves and Jose Cristovao Gonsalves. It is further their case that the entire property was auctioned in Execution Proceedings and was purchased by one late Joaquina Benedita Fernandes, the mother of the appellant no.1 on 28.02.1947 and consequently, it came to be inscribed under serial no. 48895 dated 12.06.1947. It is further their case that they have been in open, peaceful, continuous and unobstructed possession of the suit property and that they have an outhouse located on the south-east portion of their dwelling house which was used as a general store. It is further their case that the property has been surveyed under nos.2/4 and 2/5 of Seraulim Village and that the area of the dwelling house with a little space on the front and rear side has been surveyed under no.2/5 and the remaining portion of the property including an outhouse is surveyed under no.2/4. It is further their case that the entire property surveyed under no.3/4 was purchased vide two sale deeds dated 06.06.1994. The property purchased by the respondents was earlier owned by Joaquim Conceicao Joanes from whom it has devolved upon one Menino Jose Joanes and his wife Maria Rosa Piedade Joanes. It is further their case that the respondents claimed to be the exclusive owners of the property surveyed under no. 2/4 and that they claimed that the rights of the appellants were restricted only to the property surveyed under no.2/5. It is further their case that the said Menino Joanes has fraudulently sold the property surveyed under no. 2/4 to the respondents though part of the said property was belonged to the appellants. As such, it is further their case that the said property was allotted to them in Inventory Proceedings bearing no. 82/84 and that the respondents are the trespassers into the said portion of the property and consequently, the suit came to be filed claiming for different reliefs against the respondents. 6. As such, it is further their case that the said property was allotted to them in Inventory Proceedings bearing no. 82/84 and that the respondents are the trespassers into the said portion of the property and consequently, the suit came to be filed claiming for different reliefs against the respondents. 6. The respondents filed their written statement inter-alia stating that the property bearing Land Registration No. 35993 is enclave and is now surrounded on all sides by the land of Menino Joanes, now that of the respondents. It is further their case that the property of Francisco Antonio Gonsalves is the one surveyed under no. 2/5 admeasuring not more than 300 square metres wherein there is a house of the appellants. They have also disputed of having any mango trees and that an out house claimed by the appellants is a wooden stall put up on temporary in the property surveyed under no. 2/4 and that the appellants have no right in respect of the said outhouse. It is further their case that the appellants never had any right or interest to any part of the property surveyed under No. 2/4 and notice issued by the appellants was without any basis. It is further their case that Menino Joanes and his wife were sole owners of the property surveyed under no.2/4 and 3/4 and they have validly sold the plots to the respondents vide two sale deeds and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said portion of the property and that the Inventory Proceedings relied upon by the appellants are only in respect of the property surveyed under no. 2/5 of Village Seraulim which has been listed as item no.2 and further even the gift deeds executed by the sisters of the appellants are only in respect of the property surveyed under no. 2/5 which has been gifted and for other reasons stated in the written statement, it is claimed by the respondents that the suit be dismissed. The respondents have also raised a counter claim for declaration that their right of exclusive ownership in respect of the property surveyed under nos. 2/4 and 3/4 of Village of Seraulim and for the removal of the structure put up by the appellants. The issues came to be framed and the evidence was recorded before the learned Trial Court. The respondents have also raised a counter claim for declaration that their right of exclusive ownership in respect of the property surveyed under nos. 2/4 and 3/4 of Village of Seraulim and for the removal of the structure put up by the appellants. The issues came to be framed and the evidence was recorded before the learned Trial Court. By judgment and decree dated 21.12.2009 the learned Civil Judge Junior Division. at Margao, dismissed the suit filed by the appellants and the counter claim of the respondents was partly decreed thereby declaring that the respondents are the sole owners in possession of the property surveyed under nos. 2/4 and 3/4 of Village Seraulim and that the appellants have no right of whatsoever nature in respect of the property surveyed under no. 2/4 and on the wooden walls, roof tiles and tin sheets standing on the eastern side. The mandatory injunction was granted to remove all the material of wooden structure in the said portion of the property surveyed under no.2/4. By assessing the material on record, the learned Trial Judge while discussing the issue nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 has considered the inspection report in the Execution Proceedings in which the mother of the appellant no. 1 had purchased the property and found that on bare reading of the questions and answers itself suggest that the area of the property is mentioned to be 4239 square metres and further the boundary and the property of Roque Menezs was actually 44 metres from the northern side of the suit property where the house was existing. The learned Judge also considered the survey records and noted that the survey records do not confer any title to the property and only have a presumptive value. The learned Judge also took note of the fact that the respondents have purchased the property by two sale deeds from its true owners Menino Joanes and his wife Maria, both executed on 06.06.1994 and further found on perusal thereof there is a property of the appellants is stated to be enclaved. The learned Judge even perused the Inventory Proceedings and found that the property listed therein at Exhibit 88-C Col1y was described as item no.2 as bearing survey no.2/5 only. The learned Judge even perused the Inventory Proceedings and found that the property listed therein at Exhibit 88-C Col1y was described as item no.2 as bearing survey no.2/5 only. The learned Judge also took exception to the note in the said proceedings and found that the corrections were made only after the dispute with regard to the area of the suit property had already started. The learned Judge also noted that two gift deeds produced by the respondents in respect of the suit property further discloses the property as surveyed under no. 2/5 only. The learned Judge also found that the manner in which the survey records prepared also stand vitiated and finally held that presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code stands rebutted on the basis of the material on record. The learned Judge also appreciated the evidence of the witnesses examined by the appellants. The learned Judge also perused the construction licence and the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Margao, and found that the mother of the appellant no.1 had admitted that the trees were located in the property surveyed under no.2/4 which belonged to said Menino Joanes who is the predecessor in title of the respondents. The learned Judge took note of the noting of the construction licence which shows the property surveyed under no.2/4 belonged to the said Menino Joanes. The learned Judge as such found that the claim of the appellants has not been established. As such, the learned Judge has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondents as referred to herein above. 7. In an appeal preferred by the appellants, the learned Additional District Judge has re-appreciated the evidence on record and has framed four points for determination. The learned Appellate Court has found that the appellants have failed to establish that they have any right to the property surveyed under no.2/ 4 of the said village of Seraulim and that the respondents are the exclusive owners of the property surveyed under no. 2/4. By re-appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court has also noted that the rights of the appellants are confined to the property surveyed under no.2/5 and that in view of the said two sale deeds, it is the respondents who have become the owners of the property surveyed under no.2/4. 2/4. By re-appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court has also noted that the rights of the appellants are confined to the property surveyed under no.2/5 and that in view of the said two sale deeds, it is the respondents who have become the owners of the property surveyed under no.2/4. The learned Judge has also found that the documents from the original execution proceedings produced by the appellants appeared to have been tampered and further noted that even with regard to the documents produced by the appellants in connection with the mutation proceedings, some tampering has been committed. The learned Judge has also considered the evidence of DW4 to the effect that some of the relevant pages from the said execution proceedings are found missing. The learned Appellate Court also noted that PWI was convicted for forgery and had to undergo a sentence which judgment was confirmed by the then Judicial Commissioner's Court. The learned Judge on considering the said tampering drew an inference that the conduct of the PW 1 would suggest that he was indulging in such unlawful practice. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellants came to be rejected. 8. The whole dispute between the parties boils down to interpret the document pursuant to which the appellants have become the owners of the suit property. On perusal of the document at Exhibit 40/C produced by the appellants, I find that in the records of the execution proceedings, an expert was appointed by the learned Judge to ascertain the extent of the property which was the subject matter therein from the defendants in the said proceedings. On going through the report submitted by the expert, I find that the property which was the subject matter of the said execution proceedings has been depicted in the croqui which is attached to the said report. The croqui clearly depicts the extent of the property which was the subject matter of the said proceedings. On perusal of the said croqui, I find that the property shown therein in fact substantial1y corresponds to the property surveyed under No.2/5 in the record of rights. Apart from that, the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.2/5 is at a distance of approximately 44 metres from the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.21 4. On perusal of the said croqui, I find that the property shown therein in fact substantial1y corresponds to the property surveyed under No.2/5 in the record of rights. Apart from that, the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.2/5 is at a distance of approximately 44 metres from the northern boundary of the property surveyed under No.21 4. It is not in dispute that on the northern side of the property surveyed under No.2/4 the property which originally belonged to one Roque Menezes is located. On perusal of the said report, there is a specific averment by the appraisal appointed in the said proceedings to the effect that the northern boundary of the property of the judgment debtors in the said proceedings is at a distance of 44 metres from the property of the said Roque Menezes. There is nothing to suggest that such distance is from the northern boundary of the existing house as sought to be contended by Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. On plain reading of the report of the appraisal, it cannot be disputed that the northern boundary of the property purchased by the appellants is at a distance of 44 metres from the property of Roque Menezes. By no stretch of imagination this can suggest that the northern boundary of the property purchased by the appellants is towards the east of the said property. Apart from that, the learned Judge while passing the impugned judgment has also taken note of the fact that the appellant him self has admitted that beyond the said property surveyed under No.2/5, the respondents or the predecessor in title were enjoying the said property. I find that the facts finding Courts below have also taken note of the admission on the part of the mother of the appellant no.1 in the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Margao wherein she inter-alia accepted that there are trees in the property surveyed under no. 2/4 belonged to the predecessor in title of the respondents. The Courts below have also noted that the construction licence further corroborates the case of the respondents that the property of the appellants is restricted to the property surveyed under no.2/5. In such circumstances, I find that there was no misconstruction of the documents by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments. The Courts below have also noted that the construction licence further corroborates the case of the respondents that the property of the appellants is restricted to the property surveyed under no.2/5. In such circumstances, I find that there was no misconstruction of the documents by the Courts below while passing the impugned judgments. The source of title of the appellants is the auction proceedings in the said execution proceedings. The source of title itself clearly suggest that the property which has been auctioned in favour of the mother of the appellants is the property surveyed in the record of rights under survey No.2/5 of Seraulim Village. 9. With regard to the contention of Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants on the basis of the land registration document in respect of the property of the appellants, I find that on perusal of the said land registration document, such description was carried out on the basis of the auction proceedings. Hence, the source of title for describing the said property in the Land Registration Office is the one as shown in the auction proceedings. For the reasons stated herein above, it cannot be said that there is any misconstruction of the land registration document by the Courts below while dismissing the suit as well as the appeal preferred by the appellants. Both the Courts below on the basis of appreciating the evidence on record and considering the document of title produced by the appellants have concurrently come to the conclusion that the appellants have failed to establish their claim that any portion of the property surveyed under No.2/4 forms part of the property of the appellants surveyed under No.2/S. Apart from that, both the Courts below on the basis of appreciating the evidence on record have concurrently found that the property surveyed under No.2/4 is in possession of the respondents herein. It is well settled that question of possession is a finding of fact. Both the Courts below have concurrently come to the conclusion that the appellants are in possession of the property surveyed under No.2/5. No perversity has been shown by the appellants in the findings of the Courts below to that effect. Hence, the possession thereof established by the respondents read with the documents of title of the respondents clearly shows that the appellants have no claim over the property surveyed under no.2/4. 10. No perversity has been shown by the appellants in the findings of the Courts below to that effect. Hence, the possession thereof established by the respondents read with the documents of title of the respondents clearly shows that the appellants have no claim over the property surveyed under no.2/4. 10. I t is also to be noted that there were acquisition proceedings for the Konkan Railway which were initiated by the Government. It is the contention of Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the appellants were also shown as interested parties in such acquisition proceedings. I am afraid that on bare perusal of the documents produced by the appellants at Exhibit 40/C along with the croqui attached thereto it clearly depicts the railway lines passing through the said property which was now the subject matter of the said acquisition proceedings which is much beyond the road and the property surveyed under no. 2/4. Hence, merely because the appellants have been shown as interested parties by itself it cannot be said that they had any claim to such compensation on the basis of the document of title and other material on record which are referred to herein above. 11. It is also to be noted that the Lower Appellate Court while assessing the material on record has also taken note of the character of the PW I to draw an inference that he could be responsible for the tampering noted by the learned Judge in the documents produced on record. Section 52 of the Evidence Act clearly provides that in civil cases the fact that the character of any person concerned is such as to render probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is irrelevant, except in so far as such character appears from facts otherwise relevant. Hence, unless and until there is material on record to suggest that PWI was in fact responsible for the alleged tampering, the said character of PWI is irrelevant. In the present case, the documents which have been exhibited are certified copies from the relevant records. Unless there is conclusive evidence to show the alleged tampering, it is not open to the Lower Appellate Court to draw an inference on that count on the basis of the material on record. In the present case, the documents which have been exhibited are certified copies from the relevant records. Unless there is conclusive evidence to show the alleged tampering, it is not open to the Lower Appellate Court to draw an inference on that count on the basis of the material on record. Merely because some pages of the relevant file are missing, unless there is conclusive evidence to show that the person who is responsible for such act, it was not open to the Courts below to draw an inference in the Civil proceedings in the manner sought to be done by the learned Appellate Court while disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellants. The findings of the Courts below to the effect that merely because the appellant no.1 was convicted in a criminal case in connection with some fabrication of documents would be material for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that he cannot be believed in the present suit is totally misplaced. Even assuming that one of the appellant has been convicted for fabrication of documents by no stretch of imagination it can be said that their evidence cannot be considered by the Court in the suit filed by them for a substantive relief of declaration of title. This inference may be relevant in criminal case and by no stretch of imagination it has any relevance in a civil suit. Unless and until there is cogent evidence to establish that any fabrication of documents has been done by the party in the suit, it was not open to the Courts below to draw an inference on that count to disbelieve the appellants with regard to their claim in the suit. 12. With regard to the contention of Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants to the effect that the appellants would be deprived of an access in case the reliefs sought by the respondents in the counter claim are granted, I find that taking note of the statement of Mr. 12. With regard to the contention of Mr. S. S. Kakodkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants to the effect that the appellants would be deprived of an access in case the reliefs sought by the respondents in the counter claim are granted, I find that taking note of the statement of Mr. S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents upon instructions that the respondents will not raise any obstruction to a motorable access having a width of three metres to go to the main road located on the eastern side of the property belonging to the appellants surveyed under No.2IS which statement is accepted, I find that to that extent the impugned decree passed by the Courts below would have to be modified. It is not in dispute that the house is existing in the property belonging to the appellants surveyed under No.2/5 and such house was in existence since the year 1947. In such circumstances, the appellants are entitled for an access to go to the main road located on the eastern side of the said property. For the reasons stated herein above, the substantial questions of law referred to herein above are answered in favour of the respondents herein. 13. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The impugned judgments dated 21.12.2009 and 30.11.2010 passed by the Courts below stand confirmed however with a modification that the respondents shall not raise any obstruction to the user of a motorable access having a width of three metres located on the eastern side of the property surveyed under No.2/5 to go to the main road, through the property surveyed under no.2/4, located on the eastern boundary of the said survey no.2/4. (ii) The right of the appellants is purely as a means of access to go to the main road. (iii) The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.