Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 241 (BOM)

Vaman Govind Raut v. Sitaram Narayan Raut

2014-01-30

R.S.DALVI

body2014
JUDGMENT The predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein (the original plaintiff) sued the appellants herein (defendants) for injunction against interference of their possession in the suit plots of land, stated to be bearing Survey Nos. 181/2 and 182/0 of Village Sal, Taluka Bicholim, Goa. The respondents herein (the plaintiffs) have continued the lis. The defendants counter claimed, claiming ownership and prayed for deletion of the plaintiffs' name in the survey records. The plaintiff’s suit came to be decreed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bicholim on 9th August, 2000. The defendants' counter-claim was dismissed. 2. The defendants appealed. The appeal has been dismissed on 27th March, 2003. The defendants have filed this second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact of the plaintiffs' title in the suit property. 3. The plaintiffs' title must be first shown. If the plaintiffs do not show title, they would not be entitled to injunction claimed against interference to their possession. The defendants may not show their title in the suit. However, in the counter-claim, the defendants claim title and hence, must prove their title by documentary evidence. 4. The title of an immovable property has to be proved by documentary evidence, being documents of title and other documents, corroborating the title. The title of a property cannot be proved by merely oral evidence. The documents of title require to show the specific description of the property, to which the title is claimed. The description would essentially be by boundaries and area of the land to which the title is claimed. It may also be by circumstantial evidence of possession or occupation, but which evidence itself does not constitute a document of title. The parties have examined various witnesses about the ownership of various properties, as also the ownership of the properties adjoining the suit property. Aside from the aspect about actual possession, such part of the evidence cannot prove the title to any immovable property. Since the parties have relied upon various documents also, they must primarily show their respective title there-under, the survey records among them showing only their possession. 5. The Courts below have considered the documentary, as well as oral evidence led by the parties to uphold the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property. Since the parties have relied upon various documents also, they must primarily show their respective title there-under, the survey records among them showing only their possession. 5. The Courts below have considered the documentary, as well as oral evidence led by the parties to uphold the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property. From such evidence, the Courts below have pinpointed two boundaries, being the eastern and southern boundaries of the suit property to accept the plaintiffs' case in respect of the entire property, particularly named and shown to be a specified area to belong to the plaintiffs as shall be seen presently. The documents of the parties would have to be read together and as a whole. It would have to be seen whether those documents would suffice to identify the entire extent of the suit property. 6. The specific question of law framed by this Court which would require to be answered, is whether the learned trial Court erred in decreeing the suit after holding that only two boundaries of the suit property tally with the documents produced by the plaintiffs. This Court shall have to examine all the documents to determine the aforesaid question of law. 7. It may be mentioned that another question of law framed by this Court is relating to the names of the suit property. The question framed is, whether it is an admitted fact that the suit properties were known as “Hansagali” or 'Cumar Gulav', the question relating to the name of the suit property would be a question of fact. 8. A further question framed by this Court is, whether failure to comply with the procedure of Order 41, Rule 31 of the C.P.C. would necessitate the suit to be remanded. It may be mentioned that in this case, the learned first appellate Court has framed two points of determination and answered them upon considering the oral and documentary evidence. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the points of determination are so vague as to be no points of determination at all, such is not reflected from the record. That specific question of law, therefore, does not call for much inquiry. 9. Counsel on behalf of the defendants sought to raise 2 additional questions of law, but has fairly conceded that they would be covered by the aforesaid question of law. 10. That specific question of law, therefore, does not call for much inquiry. 9. Counsel on behalf of the defendants sought to raise 2 additional questions of law, but has fairly conceded that they would be covered by the aforesaid question of law. 10. The oral evidence led by the parties and considered by the two Courts below is essentially in respect of certain admissions of witnesses of the parties with regard to the boundaries of the suit property and the ownership of the properties surrounding the suit property. The documents of title of the plaintiffs and the other documents being the revenue and survey records and plans being public documents produced by the parties would be required to be analysed and the oral evidence would be required to be appreciated in light of such documentary evidence. Consequently, the extent to which such oral evidence would be accepted would require to be seen. 11. Hence the substantial questions of law to be determined in this second appeal are : (i) Whether a property of which two boundaries are identified can be accepted to be the property for the whole of which the title is proved. (ii) Whether the oral evidence at variance with the documentary evidence contained in the sale deed, as also other public documents, being the certificate of inscription, the certificate of description, matriz certificate, survey record, and cadastral survey plan (old and new) could be accepted to consider the boundaries of the property sold to the plaintiffs' predecessor-in-title, the original plaintiff. 12. The plaintiffs have produced the following documents of title to show their ownership right in the suit property. Aside from the suit property, two other properties were also purchased by the original plaintiff. The documents show varied numbers. Each of these must be collated to consider and determine the identifiable property, of which the ownership is claimed by the plaintiffs. 13. These documents are column-wise enumerated as follows: Sr. No. Document of title. Description of the property 1 Sale Deed (of 1938) (p.201) AnsagallyHansgali Cunonga XettaProperty Field Field 9697 8874 8875 (no boundaries) 2 Certificate of inscription of 1938 (p. 196) 10447 10447 10447property Property Property9697 8874 8875 of B-25 of B-23 of B-23 new new (no boundaries) 3 Certificate of description of 1938 (p.198) – 8874 - Paddy field Hansgali Boundaries: East – Temple/ Deity. North-Chandro Appa Rauto South-Naru Mosso Rauto West-Ganesh Appa Rauto (No Nalla shown on the south) (North not shown to be Temple land) 4 Matriz Certificate (p.207) - No.38 (plaint para 2A) -- -Hansgali- Boundaries: East – Temple/Deity. South-Naru Rauto Area - 11000 sq.mtrs. 5 Survey records (p.184)181/2(p.208) 182/0 - S.no.181/2 -- Garden area 100000 sq.mtr. s.no.182/0 paddy field. (rice) area 1350 sq.mtrs. with s.no.181/2 6 Survey Records. (p.191) - - Cunoga Xeta s. no. 56/8 (sold) 14. The plaintiffs claim to have purchased three properties; one of them is the suit property. The plaintiffs claim field No.8874 only as the suit property out of the properties purchased. The plaintiffs claim that the property is denoted by number 38 in the matriz certificate and survey No.181/2 and survey No.182/0 in the survey record. 15. Neither the area, nor the boundaries of the property purchased are mentioned in the sale deed or the certificate of inscription. The boundaries are given only in the certificate of description. The area claimed by the plaintiffs under survey number claimed by the plaintiffs would have to collate with and match the suit property purchased amongst the three properties. The plaintiffs have not shown how property no.38 in the matriz certificate which is shown to be 11,000 sq. metres has been increased in the survey record under survey No.181/2 to be 1,00,000 sq. metres. The property under survey No.182/0 is within survey No.181/2, and though described differently, is shown to be 1350 sq. metres separately. Hence the plaintiffs must show that they had purchased amongst three properties, one larger property of 1,01,350 sq. mtres, which is later denoted by the aforesaid two survey numbers 181/2 and 182/0. 16. The plaintiffs have not shown this collation. The Courts below have considered two boundaries – eastern and southern - to ascertain and identify the suit properties conclusively. 17. The parties are members belonging to the same extended family (as shown from their surnames in the revenue records) and neighbours (as shown from their names in the survey numbers which are adjoining one another on the cadastral survey plan). 18. Consequently, the defendants have produced other revenue records to show the names of the plaintiffs and all others against specific survey numbers. 18. Consequently, the defendants have produced other revenue records to show the names of the plaintiffs and all others against specific survey numbers. It would be interesting to see the particulars of the survey numbers claimed by the plaintiffs and the adjoining survey numbers, some of which are shown to be in the name of the plaintiffs and some in the names of others in the revenue records being Forms No. I & XIV. A column-wise statement would make this aspect clear. Sr. No. Survey No. Name of the property Name of the owner/occupant Area in Square metres. Description. 1 181/2(claimed by the plaintiffs to be property No.8874) (p.184) Ansagallyor Hansgali Plaintiffs' grand father and the plaintiffs. 1,00,000 Garden. 2 182/0 (p.208)(within 181/2) TilachoKungo (Hansgali) Plaintiffs. 1350 Paddy field (Rice) 3 56/8 (p. 191)(claimed by the plaintiffs to be property no 8875) Cunogaxetta Plaintiffs. (Sold to Keshav Baikar) 3015 Karifpaddy (Rice) 4 75/0(193) Hansgali Plaintiffs (sold to Damodar Padhye and VandanKulkarni) 39200 Dry crop (jirayat). 5 76/0(217) Hansgali Plaintiffs. 6200 Rice 6 181/3(210) Kumar GalvaVorilBharad Plaintiffs' grandfather, defendants' brother and others (Raut) 1000 Dry crop (Jirayat) 7 181/4(212) - do - - do - 4100 Garden. 8 181/5(211) - do - - do - 3900 Garden. 9 178/1(214) - do - Shiva Rauto 10700 Dry crop & Rice 10 178/2(218) - do - Soma Rauto 11s00 Dry crop & Rice 11 183/0(209) Hansagali Dwarkanath Joshi. 27,225 Dry crop & rice 19. The plaintiffs have not produced survey records of the properties to the East and South of the suit property. Only oral evidence with regard to those boundaries have been accepted to identify the suit property. The properties to the East and South of the suit property are reflected in the old cadastral survey plan and the new survey plan. The survey records meant for fiscal purpose, showing occupation, are not documents of title. The orders of the revenue officers do not decide the title. 20. The cadastral survey map shows that survey no.181 is flanked by survey Nos. 178, 179, 88, 76, 75 and 183. These are the adjoining properties of neighbours. Most of these properties are owned by members of the Raut family. Both parties to the suit belong to the said family. Some other persons outside the family also own some of these lands. 178, 179, 88, 76, 75 and 183. These are the adjoining properties of neighbours. Most of these properties are owned by members of the Raut family. Both parties to the suit belong to the said family. Some other persons outside the family also own some of these lands. The lands of the plaintiffs alone (to the exclusion of the defendants’ family) are shown to be survey Nos. 181, 182 and 76. Survey No.181 is a large property, having 5 Hissa Numbers. Survey No.181/2 is only claimed by the plaintiffs as the suit property. Survey No.181/3, 4 and 5 are not claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim only survey no.181/2, Hansgali. Survey No.181/2 is shown to be largest portion of survey no.181. Survey No.181/2 is called “Hansgali”. However, survey No. 181/3, 4 and 5 are called “Cumar Galva”. 21. Survey No.183 on the west of survey No.181 is shown to belong to Dwarkanath Joshi. Survey No.179 on the east of survey No.181 is shown to belong to temple/deity. Similarly, survey No.88 on the north of survey No.181 is also shown to belong to temple/deity. Hence the temple land extends from north to east of survey No.181, a large part of which is claimed by the plaintiffs. Survey No. 178 is towards the south of the suit property which is shown to be in occupation of Shiva and Soma Rauto and not Naru Rauto who is shown to the south of the property purchased by the original plaintiff in the certificate of inscription of the plaintiffs' property. 22. The plaintiffs claim, and the learned Judges in the concurrent findings have held, that the western boundary of the plaintiffs’ property is of the temple/deity. What is also of importance to note is that the temple land extends to the north of the suit property and also to the east of survey No.76 which belongs to the plaintiffs and which is a paddy field. 23. The southern boundary of the suit property is shown to be of Naru Rauto in the certificate of description. A part of survey No.181 shows survey No.178 to its south. A part of the southern boundary of survey no.181 is a nallah. Nallah is not shown as the southern boundary of the land purchased by the original plaintiff in the certificate of description. A part of survey No.181 shows survey No.178 to its south. A part of the southern boundary of survey no.181 is a nallah. Nallah is not shown as the southern boundary of the land purchased by the original plaintiff in the certificate of description. Survey no.178 is also shown to belong to the plaintiffs’ grandfather, but is not claimed by the plaintiffs. Naru Rauto, who is shown in the certificate of description of 1938, is not shown in the survey record. Survey No.178 is named “Cumar Galva” and not “Hansgali”. 24. The only clear boundary is towards east and north of survey No.181/2 which belongs to the temple/deity which also forms eastern boundary of the other land of the plaintiffs under survey No.76. The plaintiffs claim, and the learned Judges in the concurrent judgments have accepted, that the eastern boundary of the plaintiffs’ property is the temple/deity. Strikingly, the northern boundary of the plaintiffs’ property is shown in the certificate of description of 1938 to be bounded by the property of Chandro Appa Rauto and not the temple/deity. In the cadastral survey plan, survey No.88 is to the north of survey No.181/2. The plaintiffs have not shown that that property belongs to Chandro Appa Rauto. The Cadastral Survey Plan shows the property to be of the temple/deity. If the plaintiffs’ property being survey No.76 is considered, it would indeed show the temple property as its eastern boundary. However, it is not shown that the temple property is its northern boundary. Survey nos.77 and 78 are to the north of survey No.76. It is not shown by the plaintiffs whether these properties belong to Chandro Appa Rauto. However, what is clear is that the property to the north of survey No.181/2 is not of Chandro Appa Rauto. It is the temple property. Hence, northern boundary of survey No.181/2 does not conform with the northern boundary of the property purchased by the original plaintiff in 1938 and shown in certificate of description. Survey No.76 which is also shown in the name of the plaintiffs would show the eastern boundary to be temple, but not the northern boundary. The material and striking boundary is that the temple property extends not only to the east, but to the north of survey No.181. Survey No.76 which is also shown in the name of the plaintiffs would show the eastern boundary to be temple, but not the northern boundary. The material and striking boundary is that the temple property extends not only to the east, but to the north of survey No.181. Such a striking feature could not have been ignored whilst identifying the plaintiffs’ property by the plaintiffs or whilst accepting such identification by the Courts below. 25. The southern boundary under Survey No.178 does not show Naru Rauto, but shows Shiva Rauto and the plaintiffs' grandfather. The plaintiffs have not shown earlier record showing the property earlier belonging to Naru Rauto, which was later purchased by Shiva Rauto or the plaintiffs’ grandfather. Consequently, it cannot be conclusively seen that southern boundary of the plaintiffs’ property is of Naru Rauto who might have sold it to Shiva Rauto or Soma Rauto who are later on shown in the survey record. 26. The Courts below have essentially concluded upon two boundaries, being eastern and southern boundaries, that survey No.181/2 is collated with the property purchased by the original plaintiff and initially shown to be under No.8874 which is a paddy field called Hansgali. 27. The old cadastral survey map of Village Sal, Bicholim issued by the Government of Goa, Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Panaji also shows the aforesaid survey No.181 of the same shape. To the east of this survey number, are survey nos.75 and 76 of the plaintiffs. These three survey numbers are denoted by old survey Nos. 14, 348 and 24 respectively. Survey No.14 which later became survey No.181 has various hissas. Survey No.348 and 24 do not have any hissa number. The plaintiffs’ unmistakable property is old cadastral survey No.348, equivalent to new survey No.75 which has been sold by the plaintiffs. Survey No.76 which stands in the name of the plaintiffs bearing old cadastral survey No.24 is, therefore, also the plaintiffs’ property, which is not claimed by the plaintiffs in the suit. The defendants claim that that is the only property of the plaintiffs and which is named as Hansgali, aside from old survey no.348 which has been sold by the plaintiffs. 28. The plaintiffs’ documents of title are, therefore, not sufficient to show the suit property having been purchased by the original plaintiff. The defendants claim that that is the only property of the plaintiffs and which is named as Hansgali, aside from old survey no.348 which has been sold by the plaintiffs. 28. The plaintiffs’ documents of title are, therefore, not sufficient to show the suit property having been purchased by the original plaintiff. The documents of title do not show the area, as also boundaries and the boundaries shown in the certificate of description do not match the boundaries shown in the survey records, which are only revenue records, to show and collate the aforesaid properties. 29. Consequently, it will have to be seen whether the property claimed by the plaintiffs can be identified only on seeing two boundaries, eastern and southern, to decree the plaintiffs’ suit. This would be more telling in view of the northern and eastern boundaries of the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs, but not shown to be the property of the plaintiffs and the property of the plaintiffs showing a different northern boundary than what was the northern boundary of the property purchased by the original plaintiff, being of Chandro Appa Rauto. 30. Another striking boundary which is ignored is the nallah/river to the south of the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs which is absent in the documents of title of the original plaintiff. 31. The defendants have got a survey report of a private land surveyor, who had earlier served as a public servant. He has produced an old cadastral survey plan, along with new survey plan, superimposing the two, showing the aforesaid survey numbers. The exercise in that behalf would be most relevant when all the boundaries of the properties are not identified and the area of the property is not shown in the documents of title. 32. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that the old cadastral survey plan was not finalized by the erstwhile Portuguese Government and hence cannot be relied upon. The document has come out of public records. Whether or not it was finalized, it shows the boundaries of various survey numbers, duly numbered in the plan. These show the shape of various survey numbers. To the extent of the boundaries shown in the new plan denoting the shape of various survey numbers and the old cadastral survey numbers, the public document would have presumptive value. Whether or not it was finalized, it shows the boundaries of various survey numbers, duly numbered in the plan. These show the shape of various survey numbers. To the extent of the boundaries shown in the new plan denoting the shape of various survey numbers and the old cadastral survey numbers, the public document would have presumptive value. It will be presumed to be correct, unless the presumption is rebutted, which is not done. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that the old cadastral plan is fraudulent or is forged. It will, therefore, carry presumption of its correctness. It will have to be juxtaposed with the new survey plan. Both, the new and the old survey plans show identical shapes of the aforesaid properties being survey No.181, 75 and 76, corresponding to old survey Nos. 14, 348 and 24 respectively. The boundaries of the surrounding plots are also identical. This includes plot No.88 which is shown to be the temple property and which corresponds with old survey no.23 in the old cadastral survey plan which is to the east of survey No.76, corresponding to old survey No.24, which is unmistakably and un-disputably the plaintiffs’ property. The eastern boundary is, therefore, the same for survey No.181, as also survey No.76. The eastern boundary being that of the temple/deity cannot, therefore, only show survey No.181, claimed by the plaintiffs and merely by such boundary, the plaintiffs’ property cannot be identified. The southern boundary, as aforesaid, is not shown to be of Naru Rauto, as shown in the plaintiffs’ documents of title and cannot be accepted to be the southern boundary of survey No.181/2 claimed by the plaintiffs. 33. The identification of only two boundaries is, therefore, wholly inadequate and consequently erroneous. 34. It would be worthwhile to consider the defendants’ documents in respect of the suit plot of land also claimed by the defendants. Their earliest document is the Certificate of Inscription of the year 1879. It shows the property inscribed under No.4464 and allotment of a third of the property to the defendants’ branch. This property under No.4464 is described in the Certificate of Description also registered in the year 1879. The property therein is named “Cumar Gallav” showing paddy field and plantation of pulses, coconut and cashew situated at Village Salem, Bicholim. It shows the property inscribed under No.4464 and allotment of a third of the property to the defendants’ branch. This property under No.4464 is described in the Certificate of Description also registered in the year 1879. The property therein is named “Cumar Gallav” showing paddy field and plantation of pulses, coconut and cashew situated at Village Salem, Bicholim. The boundaries are shown thus : On the east : By the property of Antu Rauto; On the west : By field “Hasangali”; On the north : By the property of temple/deity; On the south : By sweet water drain/river water. 35. Of these boundaries, it is important to note that the property Hansagali/Hasgali is to the west of the property claimed by the defendants under inscription No.4464. The property Hansagali is claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' property shows the temple/deity to the east. This same property is to the north of the defendants’ property. A more striking boundary of the defendants’ property is the southern boundary which is the river/drain, which is not the boundary of the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs. 36. A later document of the defendants is a Deed of Dissolution of the Society of 30.1.1894, a certified copy of which has been issued by a public authority in 1992. The Deed of Dissolution shows the demarcation of division of the property in three branches, one being to the defendants’ branch. It mentions about Antu Rauto and his son and only heir Babi Antu Rauto. It specifies 47 pieces of properties which are equally divided in three parts. It also mentions and bears reference to the plaintiffs' grandfather Soma. It specifies that the property of Soma has the following boundaries : On the north : By property of Shiva; On the west : By the property of Govind Rauto; On the south : By water drain. It specifies that the property belongs to the parties of the first, second and third parts in their own proportion and that Soma does not have any right. The boundary on the east is not specified. The southern boundary made by river/drain/nallah is, therefore, the boundary of the property of the defendants. 37. The deed of dissolution also mentions that Antu Babu Rauto had given a perpetual lease to Siva. The boundary on the east is not specified. The southern boundary made by river/drain/nallah is, therefore, the boundary of the property of the defendants. 37. The deed of dissolution also mentions that Antu Babu Rauto had given a perpetual lease to Siva. The property Cumar Gallav, is shown to be bounded on the east by temple/deity and on the south by the rain water drain/nallah/river. Consequently, the Deed of Dissolution shows that the property bounded on the east by the temple/deity, does not belong to the branch of Soma, the plaintiffs' grandfather. 38. This public record is as old as the hills. It shows the position that prevailed 120 years ago. The Certificates of Inscription and Description of the property with the same boundaries have been made and shown from the public record kept since last 134 years. It would be impossible to give this document a go-by. The defendants have relied upon the old survey plan showing their property, which includes the property of the precise shape as survey No.181/2. That property is indeed bounded on the south by river/nallah/drain. It shows partly on the east and essentially on the north the property of the temple/deity. 39. The temple property to the north of Survey No.181/2 is indeed shown to the east of the plaintiffs' two properties, one of which is sold. The very purchase by the plaintiffs of the property Hansagalli is much later in the year 1938. Two of the purchased properties are called Hansagalli and one called Cunoga Xetta. That property is distinctly shown as field Hansagalli, forming the western boundary of the defendants’ property. Hansagalli is not shown to be the property bounded on the south by river/nallah/drain. It is shown in the certificate of description of the plaintiffs to be bounded on the south by the property of Naru Mosso Rauto. Consequently, it is seen that the property bounded on the south by the nallah/drain/river which is survey No.181/2 is not the property purchased by the plaintiffs in 1938 or the ancestral property belonging to his grandfather Soma. It is also seen that that property is not named Hasgali or Ansgali or Hansagali. It is named Cumar Gallav. 40. The defendants have produced various licences for extraction of cashew juice, issued by the Department of Excise for the property Cumar Gallav. That property is seen to be survey No.181/2. It is also seen that that property is not named Hasgali or Ansgali or Hansagali. It is named Cumar Gallav. 40. The defendants have produced various licences for extraction of cashew juice, issued by the Department of Excise for the property Cumar Gallav. That property is seen to be survey No.181/2. It is contended that it is not the document of title of the defendants. That is correct. These licences show the evidence of possession of the defendants to the property Cumar Gallav which in the document of title being certificates of description and inscription show the boundaries and registration number since the year 1879. 41. Every plaintiff is enjoined to show the description of the suit property sufficient to identify it by boundaries or numbers in record of settlement or survey if the subject matter of the suit is an immovable property under Order VII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs have identified the suit property by its name and survey number being Hansgalli under survey No.181/2, having survey No.182/0 as within that property. Upon the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiffs have described the property under land registration No.8874 as per certificate of description made in 1938. This property is stated to be having old matriz no.38. The plaintiffs have shown the survey numbers of the property which form the boundaries of the suit property. These are shown to be on the east by survey No.179; to the west by survey No.183; to the north by road going from Sal to Dodamarg and survey No.179 and to the south by nallah and survey No.178. This would be survey No.181/2. Survey No.179 is the property of the temple/deity. That is not shown to be northern boundary of the plaintiffs' property or of the property of his grandfather, Soma. Similarly, the southern boundary made by river/nallah/drain is not shown to be of the plaintiffs' property or of the property of his grandfather, Soma. The plaintiffs have not shown the documents relating to the property on the west under survey No.183 or the property on the south being survey No.178. The road is now constructed. Prior to the road, the entire northern boundary of survey No.181 was the property of the temple/deity. This is shown to be also in survey No.88 which is not shown by the plaintiffs. 42. The road is now constructed. Prior to the road, the entire northern boundary of survey No.181 was the property of the temple/deity. This is shown to be also in survey No.88 which is not shown by the plaintiffs. 42. The only two properties unmistakably of the plaintiffs are survey Nos.75 and 76. Survey No.75 having been sold and survey No.76 is to the west of the property of the temple/deity. Hence, the property of the temple/deity forms the eastern boundary of the property of the plaintiffs. The eastern and northern boundaries of survey No.181/2, which are also of the temple/deity are, therefore, the boundaries of another property not belonging to the plaintiffs. 43. Consequently, the contention on behalf of the defendants that merely upon seeing two boundaries of the property tallying with the documents of the plaintiffs the title of the plaintiffs cannot be conclusively decided, is wholly correct, specially in cases where one of the properties bounds more properties than one. That boundary cannot be taken to be of the property claimed by the plaintiffs which is other than the property shown to belong to the plaintiffs. Similarly, absence of one of the boundaries, in this case being the southern boundary constituted by the river/nallah, which is clear and explicit, would also not enable the Court to conclusively decide the title of the plaintiffs upon only two of the boundaries. The plaintiffs would require to show, and the Court would be enjoined to see, other two boundaries and also consider the old survey plan, along with the new survey record and juxtapose these plans to see the collation of the plots in the two plans by their unique shapes. 44. The Court, therefore, must consider all the aforesaid documents produced by both the parties alongside the old cadastral survey plan and the new survey plan. The defendants have got survey made from a private surveyor who had the experience of being a public servant earlier. He has prepared a plan and done precisely the exercise required. He has been issued the certified copy of the old cadastral survey plan of village Sal, Bicholim, showing all the aforesaid plots of land under the old survey numbers of the same shapes, as also the survey plan bearing new survey numbers. The two plans are public documents, issued by a public authority. He has been issued the certified copy of the old cadastral survey plan of village Sal, Bicholim, showing all the aforesaid plots of land under the old survey numbers of the same shapes, as also the survey plan bearing new survey numbers. The two plans are public documents, issued by a public authority. The old survey plan is a document more than 30 years old. It carries a presumption of correctness under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is issued by the Directorate of Settlement and Land Records, Panaji, Government of Goa. The document is produced from proper custody. It must be taken to be duly executed and attested by a public authority as a plan from the public record. It is not even contended that such a plan is not correct or inaccurate. The shapes of the property in the old cadastral survey plan tally with the shapes of the property under new survey plan. It would be imperative to see that the properties claimed by the parties, upon the properties being collated in the two plans, the trial Court has failed to call upon the relevant authority to produce the new survey plan and juxtapose the same with the old cadastral plan. The plaintiffs' witness has been shown the plan showing the nallah to question him with regard to the southern boundary of the suit property. 45. The defendants have examined the Land Surveyor who carried out the aforesaid exercise. It was imperative for the trial Court to see the worth of such an exercise. In the absence of the trial Court calling for a public surveyor from the Office of the Directorate of Land Records, the evidence of the Land Surveyor produced by the defendants would be required to be seen. The plan drawn by the Land Surveyor, examined as DW.6 shows the old cadastral survey plan. The new survey No.181/2 is seen to be the old survey No.14 with specific boundaries of the river/drain on the south and temple/deity on the west, as also the north. The new survey Nos. 75 and 76 correspond to old survey Nos.348 and 24, in neither of which the northern boundary is shown to be of the temple/deity. This is a most striking boundary. The eastern boundary of survey No.76 corresponding to old survey No. 24 is seen to be bounded by the property of temple/deity. The new survey Nos. 75 and 76 correspond to old survey Nos.348 and 24, in neither of which the northern boundary is shown to be of the temple/deity. This is a most striking boundary. The eastern boundary of survey No.76 corresponding to old survey No. 24 is seen to be bounded by the property of temple/deity. The southern boundary does not show river/nallah/drain. In fact, the southern boundary of survey No.76 shows that the land earlier belonged to the plaintiffs and later sold as per survey record of the plaintiffs. These two plots of land are Hansagali or Ansagali claimed by the plaintiffs. A lack of any evidence of other boundaries amplifies the plaintiffs' case of land under registration No.8874, shown in the matriz certificate as No.38, admeasuring only 11,000 sq. metres is not the suit land claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, cannot claim title to survey No.181/2 and survey No.182/0 within. 46. Consequently, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit is wholly incorrect. The first appellate Court, which has confirmed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs, has also proceeded only upon the evidence of documents of title produced by the plaintiffs, but has failed to see that those documents of title of the plaintiffs collate with the new survey number 181/2 or the extent of the land claimed by the plaintiffs being in excess of 11,000 sq. metres shown in the matriz certificate. 47. Consequently, there is a lot of substance in the defendants’ contention with regard to the specific extent of the boundaries of an immovable property claimed by the plaintiffs. The substantial question of law framed under ground (f) would, therefore, require to be answered in the affirmative, holding that the learned trial Court committed an error in decreeing the suit after holding that only two boundaries of the suit property tally with the documents produced by the plaintiffs. The substantial question of law under ground (f) would, therefore, require to be answered in the affirmative holding that the decree in the suit of an immovable property requiring title to be shown cannot be considered only upon two boundaries of the suit property tallying with the documents of the plaintiffs ignoring and excluding other documentary evidence. 48. The substantial question of law under ground (f) would, therefore, require to be answered in the affirmative holding that the decree in the suit of an immovable property requiring title to be shown cannot be considered only upon two boundaries of the suit property tallying with the documents of the plaintiffs ignoring and excluding other documentary evidence. 48. It is contended on behalf of the defendants that the judgment of the first appellate Court does not conform with requirement of Order 41, Rule 31 of C.P.C. The learned Judge has framed two points of determination though not separately shown. The learned Judge has considered also the names of the properties and the descriptions alongside the documents of title of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge has deemed it fit not to interfere with the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned Judge has given a decision on two points of determination, with reasons agreeing with the trail Court’s judgment. The procedural requirement of Order 41, Rule 31 of the CPC has sufficiently been complied with. The contention of the Counsel on behalf of the defendants that there is failure to comply with the procedure necessitating remand of the matter cannot be accepted. 49. The learned Judges have considered the admissions of the defendants with regard to the boundaries of the suit property, amongst other evidence. The oral evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of both the parties with regard to the actual possession at site, and in relation to farming, orchard, rocky land, grass, etc., would be matters of fact, of which oral evidence can be given. However, the boundaries of the suit property would essentially form part of the agreement between the parties or the public record. These are shown in and can only be seen from the sale deed, in the public documents being certificate of description of 1938 and later public records, being matriz certificate, survey records and cadastral survey plan. Similarly, the numbers, names and description of the property purchased under the sale deed shown therein are parts of the sale deed itself, being the agreement between the parties to the sale reduced to the form of document. The question of law that would arise is, whether the oral evidence with regard to any part of such documents as aforesaid could be led and accepted, if it is at variance with such documents. 50. The question of law that would arise is, whether the oral evidence with regard to any part of such documents as aforesaid could be led and accepted, if it is at variance with such documents. 50. The oral evidence with regard to matters in the sale deed would squarely be governed by Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in Chapter VI thereof, the relevant portions of which, run thus : “CHAPTER VI OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 91. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants and other dispositions of property reduced to form of documents.- When the terms of a contract, or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.... 92. Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement.-When the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting form, its terms: ….” 51. The sale deed shows three properties purchased by the original plaintiff on 20th April, 1938 described as property/field/ field and named as Ansgally/Ansagalli/Cunoga Xeta with land registration numbers being 9697/8874/8875. These essential aspects cannot be a matter of oral evidence. Any oral evidence at variance on these aspects would be excluded altogether. 52. Upon the sale deed, two certificates of inscription and description were issued for registration of the property sold under numbers 10447 in 1938 itself. These documents show registration numbers, description of the properties, their specified numbers, boundaries of the properties and kinds of properties that were purchased. The description of the properties and the boundaries would, therefore, be as per those documents being the document about 100 years old. These documents show registration numbers, description of the properties, their specified numbers, boundaries of the properties and kinds of properties that were purchased. The description of the properties and the boundaries would, therefore, be as per those documents being the document about 100 years old. No oral evidence at variance with such documents also can be led. This would seal the fate of the parties with regard to the boundaries of the properties, more specially the southern and northern boundaries as aforesaid. 53. A lot of needless evidence has been led through various witnesses of both the parties to show who owned which property and which properties constituted the boundaries of the suit property. The learned Judges of the Courts below have also considered such oral evidence and the “admissions” made there-under. These admissions include evidence with regard to the sale of various plots of land of which documents are not produced and the description of the suit property of which the aforesaid documents are produced. The oral evidence which is at variance even with revenue records, being matriz certificate and the survey record would not hold water. It is not for witnesses to state which properties surveyed under which specified survey numbers or their boundaries or kind of properties that these were. The witnesses can give evidence only with regard to the factual aspects in these properties. Consequently, the reliance upon the admissions and the judgment in that behalf would constitute an error in law. The oral evidence with regard to immovable property, which can be transferred and conveyed only by documentary evidence which is at variance with the documents on record, being not only the agreement between the parties, but analogous documents made upon such documents and the Government records carrying a presumption of correctness would stand excluded. It is also argued that these boundaries are admitted by the defendants. The boundaries are shown in the cadastral survey plan. They must be mentioned in the documents of title. Only the documents of title would show identification of the properties. Oral evidence in that behalf would also, therefore, stand excluded by the documentary evidence. Oral evidence could be given only on the factual position denoted by actual possession of the lands of certain parties. It cannot replace the documentary evidence contained in the survey records and the plans which are public documents. 54. Oral evidence in that behalf would also, therefore, stand excluded by the documentary evidence. Oral evidence could be given only on the factual position denoted by actual possession of the lands of certain parties. It cannot replace the documentary evidence contained in the survey records and the plans which are public documents. 54. In the result, the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs would have to be dismissed, since the plaintiffs have not shown that the property claimed by them in the suit being survey no.181/2 having survey No.182/0 within, was one of the properties purchased by the original plaintiff in 1938 from the intrinsic documentary evidence with regard to its name, number, kind of property and its boundaries, as discussed above. 55. Accordingly, the second appeal succeeds on the aforesaid two substantial questions of law. The Judgment of the first appellate Court in which the judgment of the trial Court has merged, is set aside. The judgment of the trial Court also stands set aside and consequently, the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed. The counter-claim of the defendants succeeds and is made absolute as prayed. There shall be no order as to costs.