JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. Admit on the following substantial questions of law: (1) Whether erroneous appreciation of the documents and the evidence on record vitiated the findings and which resulted in grave injustice to appellants?” (2) Whether the District Judge was justified in upholding the ownership of the plaintiffs to the suit property when they did not produce any Sale Deed to show the details of the property purchased and the extent of ownership and whether the same in any manner concerns the suit property ? 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents waives service of notice after admission. By consent heard forthwith. 4. This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 21/12/2012 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-I, (FTC), Panaji ('First Appellate Court', for short) in Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of 2007, and the Judgment, Order and Decree dated 31/08/2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji ('trial Court', for short), in Special Civil Suit No.59/2000/C. 5. The appellant is the defendant in the said suit and respondents are the plaintiffs. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the said suit. 6. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for declaration that the suit survey number (88/1 of village Morombi-O-Pequeno) forms part and parcel of the suit property and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to get the name of the defendant deleted from the occupant's column of the suit survey number and to replace the name of plaintiffs, therein. 7. Case of the plaintiffs, in short, is as follows: They are the owners in possession of the property known as “Firgueacho Agor” or “Firanguecho Agor” or “Wet Property” partly situated in the City of Panaji and partly in the Village of Merces which is a salt pan and paddy field dis-annexed from the property described under land Registration No.1399 at page 510 of Book B-16 (Old) and now forming a distinct property by itself bearing Land Registration No.22671 at page-76 of book B-61 (new) in the Land Registration Office of Ilhas, at Panaji. The said property is recently surveyed under survey nos. The said property is recently surveyed under survey nos. 88/1 and 89/1 of the Village of Morombi-O-Pequeno and under Chalta No.1 of P. T. Sheet No.29 and Chalta Nos.2 and 3 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of the City Survey of Panaji. The said property is enrolled in the Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No.510 and the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession of the same as owners. The suit property along with portion of the original property, was shown under cadastral No.3 in the old survey in the name of predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs namely Jose Maria de Naronha e Oliviera and others. The northern part of the strip of the suit property, as also the western part of the suit property, separating the remaining portion of the original property is in fact a “Poem”, meant for the passage of salt water from river Mandovi during high tide and the plaintiffs are also in enjoyment and possession of the said “Poem”. During the recent survey, the portion of the suit property under Chalta No.1 of P. T. Sheet No.29 and Chalta Nos.2 and 3 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of City Survey Panaji is rightly recorded in the name of the plaintiffs, but the portion of the suit property under survey no.88/1 of Village Morombi-O-Pequeno is wrongly recorded in the name of the defendant. This survey no.88/1, which is part of the said “Poem” is the suit survey number and the defendant was never the owner nor was in possession of the same. The plaintiffs issued notice dated 26/10/1999, to the defendant for correction of the survey records of the suit property, but the defendants did not respond. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the said suit. 8. By way of written statement, the defendant alleged that the property under Chalta No.2 of P. T. sheet No.30 is in fact the continuation of the property under survey no.88/1 of the Village Morombi-O-Pequeno and that both are owned by the defendant. The entire property is recorded as “Sangria da Communidade” in the “Tombacao” records. The recording of the names of the plaintiffs in the survey records of Chalta No. 2 of P. T. Sheet no.30 is an error and the same is required to be corrected. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint. 9. The entire property is recorded as “Sangria da Communidade” in the “Tombacao” records. The recording of the names of the plaintiffs in the survey records of Chalta No. 2 of P. T. Sheet no.30 is an error and the same is required to be corrected. The defendants denied the case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint. 9. The defendant raised a counter claim praying for a declaration that the plaintiffs have no right, title or authority to any portion of the land under Chalta no.2 of P. T. sheet No. 30 of the city survey of Panaji and for mandatory injunction to delete the entries of the names of the plaintiffs from the survey records. 10. The plaintiffs, by way of written statement to the counterclaim, denied the claim of the defendant to Chalta No. 2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of the city survey of Panaji. 11. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for an declaration that suit survey no.88 or 88/1 is owned by the plaintiffs? (2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiffs are entitled for deletion of the name of the defendant from the occupants column of the property bearing survey no. 88/- or 88/1 of the Village of Morombi-O-Pequeno? (3) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiffs have no right or authority to any portion of the land bearing chalta No. 2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of City Survey of Panaji? (4) Whether the defendant is entitled for a mandatory injunction directing the inspector of survey and land records, city Survey, Panaji, to delete the names of the plaintiffs and to include the name of the defendant in respect to the said chalta no.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of the City Survey of Panaji? (5) What relief ? What Order? 12. During the course of trial before the trial Court, Plaintiffs examined the plaintiff no.1 as PW1, a surveyor by name Prazares Gonsalves as PW-2 and produced documents in their support. The defendant examined its special attorney namely Andre Agnelo Oliveira as DW-1 and he produced documentary evidence in support of the defendant. 13. Upon appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Court found that inscription and description documents of the property produced by the plaintiffs at Exhibit PW-1/B Colly; description under no. The defendant examined its special attorney namely Andre Agnelo Oliveira as DW-1 and he produced documentary evidence in support of the defendant. 13. Upon appreciation of the entire material on record, the trial Court found that inscription and description documents of the property produced by the plaintiffs at Exhibit PW-1/B Colly; description under no. 1399 produced at Exhibit PW-1/C Colly; and Matriz Certificate produced at Exhibit PW-1/D Colly go to show that the claim of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the property "Firgueacho Agor" or "Firaneguecho Agor" and also known as "Wet Property" which is partly in village of Morombi-O-Pequeno and partly in the city limits of Panaji, is true. Insofar as Survey No. 89/1, is concerned, the plaintiffs had produced Form No.I and XIV at Exhibit PW1/E, which shows the names of the plaintiffs. The trial Court also found that Form No.B of Chalta No.1 of P. T. sheet No.29 and Form No.B of Chaltas no.2 and 3 of P. T. Sheet No.30 produced by the plaintiffs at Exhibit PW1/G and Exhibit PW-1/H respectively show the name of the holders as Juse de Andrade e Souza and others. The plaintiffs had produced the survey plan of the property bearing survey no.88 and of Chalta Nos.2 and 3 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of City Survey of Panaji as Exhibit PW-1/I-Colly and cadastral survey plan as Exhibit PW-1/J. According to the trial Court, all the above documentary evidence goes to show that there is substance in the evidence of the plaintiffs that the suit property along-with the remaining portion of the original property from which the suit property was dis-annexed in the recent survey conducted by the Mamlatdar for records of right and by City Survey Officer, was shown in the old survey under cadastral no.3 in the name of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs, namely Juze Maria de Noronhae Olievera and others. The trial Court found from the old cadastral survey that it can be clearly seen that the suit property, on the northern side i.e. Ribandar Causeway side and also from the western side i.e. towards the west part of the original property, comprised of the “poem”. The trial Court found from the old cadastral survey that it can be clearly seen that the suit property, on the northern side i.e. Ribandar Causeway side and also from the western side i.e. towards the west part of the original property, comprised of the “poem”. The trial Court took note of the fact that in spite of the receipt of the notice issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant calling upon them to give no objection for substituting their names in place of the defendant in the records of survey no.88/1, the defendant did not reply the said notice to make out a case that their name is rightly figuring in the occupant's column in respect of the said Survey No.88/1. The trial Court found that the case of the plaintiffs has been fully confirmed by the Surveyor Shri Prazares Gonsalves, who is examined as PW-2. The trial Court held that the survey report dated 05/10/2005 and the plan prepared by PW-2 which is at Exhibit PW-2/B and Exhibit PW-2/C respectively, go to show that there is substance in the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property is wrongly shown in the name of the defendant by the survey authorities. The trial Court held that the 'tombacao' book produced by the defendant is a private document which cannot be treated as equivalent to the old cadastral plan which is a public document. The trial Court further found that there is nothing produced by the defendant on record to show that they are in possession of the property of survey no. 88/1 and that the chalta no.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 belongs to the communidade and that the 'sangria' which is shown on the 'tombacao' plan corresponds to the property bearing survey no.88/1 and chalta no.2 of P. T. Sheet no.30 of City Survey of Panaji. The suit, therefore, came to be decreed with costs and the counter claim of the defendant was dismissed by the trial Court. 14. In the Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of 2007 filed by the defendant before the District Court, the First Appellate Court formulated following points for determination: (1) Whether the property under survey no.88/1(88) of village Morombi-O-Pequeno is part and parcel of the suit property and that the name of defendant is wrongly recorded in its survey records? 14. In the Regular Civil Appeal No.88 of 2007 filed by the defendant before the District Court, the First Appellate Court formulated following points for determination: (1) Whether the property under survey no.88/1(88) of village Morombi-O-Pequeno is part and parcel of the suit property and that the name of defendant is wrongly recorded in its survey records? (2) Whether the property under Chalta No.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of City Survey Panaji is the continuation of property under survey no.88/1 of village Morombi-O-Pequeno and that the names of plaintiffs are wrongly recorded in its survey records? (3) Whether the impugned Judgment, Order and Decree calls for interference? 15. Upon consideration of the entire material on record in the light of the grounds stated by the defendants in the memo of appeal, the learned First Appellate Court, first of all, held that in the written statement filed by the defendant, the claim of the plaintiffs regarding the identity, description, location and ownership of the suit property can be taken to have been admitted by the defendant since specific denials have not been made. The First Appellate Court also found that the plaintiffs, in support of their claim, have relied upon the certificates of description and inscription at Exhibit PW-1/B Colly. and Exhibit PW-1/C Colly. along with Matriz Certificate which is at Exhibit PW-1/D Colly. The First Appellate Court, upon perusal of the said description and inscription certificates, found that the property 'Firgueacho Agor' or 'Firanguecho Agor' or 'Wet property' claimed by the plaintiffs is adjacent to Ribandar bridge, situated in the village of Morombi-O-Pequeno, being a pan for extraction of salt and land of cultivation of paddy known as “Baltim”, dis-annexed from the property earlier described under No.1399, at page 510 of book B-16, Old and forming a distinct property by itself. It was found that in the Matriz records also the said property was found inscribed under No.510 in favour of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court found that by calculating the area of survey no. It was found that in the Matriz records also the said property was found inscribed under No.510 in favour of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court found that by calculating the area of survey no. 89/1 and 88/1 of village Morombi-O-Pequeno and the area of Chalta No.1 of P. T. Sheet No. 29 and Chalta Nos.2 and 3 of P. T. Sheet No.30 of City survey of Panaji, as shown in the survey forms at Exhibit PW-1/E, Exhibit PW-1/F, Exhibit PW-1/G and Exhibit PW-1/H, it can be seen that the total area is somewhat nearby to the total area of the suit property as mentioned in the documents of inscription and description at Exhibit PW-1/B Colly. The First Appellate Court held that the boundaries of the entire properties which are mentioned in the inscription and description documents, are sufficient to prove that the suit property forms eastern part of the larger property. It was found that the eastern, northern and southern boundaries of the entire property as mentioned in the description and inscription documents are the same as that of the eastern, northern and southern boundaries of the suit property. The learned First Appellate Court further found that there is also support of the Matriz record to the case of the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court found that with the description of the property as claimed by the defendant, on going through the “Tombacao” plan No.597 at Exhibit 35-C, it is seen that the shape and the location of the property under lote no.159, as shown on the plan, does not at all tally with the shape and location of survey no.88, as shown on the new survey plan, at Exhibit PW-1/I colly. The Court further found that even the area of lote No.159 does not tally with the area of survey no. 88/1. The learned First Appellate Court found that the defendant has not examined any expert to prove the identity of the property claimed by the defendant in the counter claim, which otherwise is not described in the written statement with its plot numbers and with its corresponding survey numbers, either old or new. She found that except the Form No.I and XIV of the survey records, there is nothing else to confirm the ownership and possession of the defendant in respect of survey no.88/1. She found that except the Form No.I and XIV of the survey records, there is nothing else to confirm the ownership and possession of the defendant in respect of survey no.88/1. The learned First Appellate Court observed that is a settled position of law that survey record is not a document of title and that the presumption of survey is rebuttable. The First Appellate Court found that the evidence of PW-2, Prazares Gonsalves, who is a qualified and experienced surveyor is convincing and the same is not shaken in the cross-examination on material aspects of the identification of the suit property carried out by him on the basis of superimposition of the old cadastral survey plan over the new survey plans pertaining to the aforesaid survey/Chalta numbers. The First Appellate Court held that the defendant could not succeed in rebutting the presumption of the entries in the survey records in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the property under chalta no.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30, whereas the plaintiffs successfully rebutted the presumption of the entries in the survey records in favour of the defendant in respect of the property under survey no. 88/1, by means of sufficient documentary as well as expert evidence. Consequently, the appeal also came to be dismissed. 16. Mr. Kantak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant, submitted that the defendant had specifically denied the case of the plaintiffs in the written statement and the denials cannot be termed as evasive and that the entire written statement ought to have been read as whole. In this regard, learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of “Miss Catarina Fernandes (since deceased) and others Vs. Mr. Jose Menino Rodgrigues and another” reported in [2012 (2) Goa L. R. 434 (Bom) (PB)]. He further submitted that the plaintiffs did not produce any Sale Deed to show the details of the properties purchased and the extent of ownership and to show whether the same pertains to the suit property. He tried to point out from the evidence of the PW-1 that he was not able to locate the correct position of the property. He further submitted that Matriz records no longer have value after coming into force of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. He tried to point out from the evidence of the PW-1 that he was not able to locate the correct position of the property. He further submitted that Matriz records no longer have value after coming into force of Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. Learned Counsel urged that since the old cadastral survey was not promulgated, the same had no presumptive value and hence could not have been relied upon. He submitted that the evidence of PW-2 was not at all sufficient to prove the case of the plaintiffs. He submitted that though the defendant could not succeed to prove the counter claim, however, that does not mean that the plaintiffs had proved their case. He relied upon the case of “Ram Das Vs. Salim Ahmed and another”, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 719 . He therefore submitted that the findings of both the Courts below are perverse and both judgments are liable to be quashed and set aside. 17. On the other hand, Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by both the Courts below and that the said findings are based on the appreciation of evidence on record by both the Courts and the said findings cannot at all be termed as perverse. He submitted that in addition to the documentary evidence of title produced by the plaintiffs, there was evidence given by an expert Surveyor namely PW-2 who had done the exercise of showing as to how the suit property corresponds with the property claimed by the plaintiffs by way of documentary evidence. According to him the substantial questions framed by this court are not proved and in fact no substantial question of law at all arises in the present appeal and therefore no interference is warranted with the impugned judgments and orders. 18. I have gone through the material on record and have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 19. A perusal of the judgments of the trial Court and First appellate court, certainly reveals that the defendant could not at all prove that the property bearing Chalta No.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 and survey No.88/1 belongs to it. I have gone through the material on record and have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties. 19. A perusal of the judgments of the trial Court and First appellate court, certainly reveals that the defendant could not at all prove that the property bearing Chalta No.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 and survey No.88/1 belongs to it. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant fairly conceded that there is no evidence on record to decree the counter claim, with regard to Chalta No.2 of P. T. Sheet no.30. The only evidence in respect of survey no. 88/1, in favour of the defendant, is the Form No. I & XIV. The suit of the plaintiffs is only in respect of said survey No. 88/1. Once the claim over the Chalta No.2 of P. T. Sheet No.30 is given up by the defendant as not proved, what remains in dispute is only survey no. 88/1 which admeasures 669 square metres and stands in the name of the defendant, in the promulgated survey records. Admittedly, the promulgated survey records in Form No.I & XIV in respect of the portions bearing Chalta nos.2 and 3 of P. T. Sheet No.30 and survey no. 89/1 have been duly recorded in the names of the plaintiffs. But the portion under survey no. 88/1, which is adjacent to the other portions of the property of the plaintiffs, has been recorded in Form No.I & XIV, in the name of the defendant. The defendant, in the counter claim, has admitted that the property under Chalta No.2 of P. T. sheet No.30 is in fact the continuation of the property under survey no.88/1 of the Village Morombi-O-Pequeno. In such circumstances, when the plaintiffs have produced the title documents in the form of inscription and description certificates from the land registration office, the non production of Sale Deed does not matter and the question is only whether the survey no. 88/1 is part and parcel of the property of the plaintiffs, as described in the land registration document. 20. 88/1 is part and parcel of the property of the plaintiffs, as described in the land registration document. 20. After perusal of the impugned Judgments and Orders of the Courts below and the relevant material brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the respective parties, I find that there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by both the Courts below upon appreciation of the evidence, both documentary as well as oral, led by the parties. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the defendant could not satisfy this Court as to how the said findings can be termed as perverse. Exhibit PW-1/B colly is the Description and Inscription document pertaining to the property described under No.22671 with the name “Firgueacho Agor”' or Firanguecho Agor” also known as “Wet property”, adjacent to Ribandar bridge, situated in the village of Morombi-O-Pequeno, being pan of extraction of salt and land of cultivation of paddy known as “Baltim”, dis-annexed from the earlier described entire property under No.1399, at page 510 of Book B-16, Old and forming a distinct property by itself. Exhibit PW-1/C colly is the Description and Inscription Certificate in respect of the entire property described under No.1399 and this shows that it is a Wet Property adjacent to Ribandar bridge, constituting tilling land for extraction of salt and situated in the village of Morombi-O-Pequeno. The boundaries of this entire property, as mentioned in this document, are sufficient to show that the suit property forms eastern portion of this larger property. The eastern, northern and southern boundaries of this entire property, as given in this document, are the same as that of eastern, northern and southern boundaries of the suit property. The trial Court had confirmed that all the above documentary evidence goes to show that there is substance in the evidence of the plaintiffs that the suit property alongwith the remaining portion of the original property from which the suit property was dis-annexed in the recent survey conducted by the Mamlatdar for records of right and by City Survey Officer, was shown in the old survey under cadastral no.3 in the name of the predecessors-in-title of the plaintiffs, namely Juze Maria de Noronha e Olievera and others. The plaintiffs have produced the evidence of an expert Surveyor namely PW-2 who superimposed the cadastral plan pertaining to the property of the plaintiffs on the recent survey plan of all the survey/chalta numbers claimed by plaintiffs and found that they tally. The survey report and plan prepared by PW-2 are on record and they have been duly proved. The evidence of PW-2 was not shaken in the cross-examination and has been rightly accepted by the Courts below. No doubt, on account of section 107 of the Land Revenue Code, the new survey having been carried out under the land Revenue Code, the said new survey prevails over the old survey. But in terms of Section 201 of the Land Revenue Code, any thing done or suffered under the previous law is not affected. Neither in the written statement nor in the evidence, the defendant took objection to the old cadastral survey on the ground that it was not promulgated. It is for the first time in this Second Appeal that the defendant has brought on record that the old cadastral survey records were not promulgated. Be that as it may, the plaintiffs' case is not based only on the old cadastral survey but mainly on the documents of title viz, the Description and Inscription certificates. There is no dispute that the weakness in defendant's claim for title to the property cannot establish plaintiffs title. There was no counter claim filed by the defendant in the case of “Ram Das” (supra). When the defendant files counter claim for declaration that the defendant is the owner of property which is claimed by the plaintiffs and miserably fails to prove the same, naturally by preponderance of probabilities, the case of the plaintiffs, which otherwise is acceptable, becomes superior as compared to that of the defendant. There is documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the case of the plaintiffs. Non production of Sale Deed is not fatal. The documents on record have been rightly appreciated. The substantial questions are, therefore, answered in the negative. 21. On account of the above, the impugned Judgments and Orders do not warrant any interference. No other substantial question of law, mentioned in the memo of appeal, arises in this appeal and the findings on facts rendered by both the Courts below are neither arbitrary nor perverse as they take possible views. 21. On account of the above, the impugned Judgments and Orders do not warrant any interference. No other substantial question of law, mentioned in the memo of appeal, arises in this appeal and the findings on facts rendered by both the Courts below are neither arbitrary nor perverse as they take possible views. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 22. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.