JUDGMENT R.M. BORDE, J. 1. This is an appeal by the original defendant no. 1 objecting to the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court while dealing with Regular Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2003 decided on 30.09.2005. The plaintiffs instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 29/98/B claiming the following reliefs:- (a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to delete the name of the late father of the defendant no. 1 appearing in the column of occupant of survey no. 54/2 of village Vagurmem and insert the name of the plaintiff no. 6 as representative of the other plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 and 3 in its place. (b) In view of the above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to retrain defendant no. 1, his agents, relations, family members, or any person or persons claiming through or under him from interfering, trespassing, dumping any material or undertaking any work of construction either of temporary or permanent nature or creating any nuisance of whatsoever nature in the said property by way of permanent injunction. 2. The plaintiffs come to the Court with the contention that they are the owners and possessors of the property known as 'DEG' alias 'KHAJAGI BAG' situated at Village Vagurme of Ponda Taluka which is enrolled in the matriz record under Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the property surveyed under No. 54/2 is of an area of 15000 square metres which has been wrongly entered in the name of the late father of the defendant as occupant with one Sada Anant Prabhu as its tenant. The plaintiffs has given the boundaries of the property in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the property belonged to his grand father by name Zoiba Soiru Porobo who had two sons by name Soiru Zoiba Porobo and Hori Zoiba Porobo, who along with their wives expired and the plaintiffs are their heirs to the extent of 1/3rd share. The another share to the extent of 1/3rd belonging to Pundi Babu Porobo who expired issue less some 80 years back, is possessed by the plaintiffs. The another share to the extent of 1/3rd belonging to Pundi Babu Porobo who expired issue less some 80 years back, is possessed by the plaintiffs. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the third share belongs to Govind Fatti Porobo and his two brothers is also possessed by the plaintiffs since last more than 40 to 50 years without there being any obstruction or opposition from any body including the defendant and the tenant. As such, the plaintiffs claim to have prescriptive title over the property. According to the plaintiffs, the name of the late father of defendant no. 1 has been wrongly inserted in the column of occupant of survey no. 54/2 who did not have any right, title or interest in respect of the property or part thereof and that the property is in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs with these contentions approached the Court claiming the reliefs referred to in the above para. 3. The suit has been contested by defendant no. 1 by presenting written statement. The defendant contends that the relief claimed in respect of the deletion of the name of defendant from the survey records is not liable to be granted in view of Section 106 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. The defendant has also objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of bar of limitation. So also the defendant claims that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The defendant has specifically averred that the property bearing survey no. 54/2 admeasuring 15000 square metres is part and parcel of the defendant's property named "Baga Cozgui or Cozgui Baga" having descriptional identity as a distinct and separate entity under Land Registration bearing No. 6177 and 505 of Book No. 16. According to the defendant, after the preparation of the survey records under Land Revenue Code, the matriz records is irrelevant and shall not be considered for any purpose. The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on the receipt of the evidence led by the parties documentary as well as the oral was of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case. As such by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2003 was pleased to dismiss the suit. The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on the receipt of the evidence led by the parties documentary as well as the oral was of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their case. As such by the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2003 was pleased to dismiss the suit. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court approached the First Appellate Court by presenting the appeal which has been allowed by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court is pleased to grant relief in terms of the prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant/original defendant vehemently contends that it was not open for the First Appellate Court to issue a direction directing the deletion of the name of defendant no. 1 from the revenue records in view of the specific bar contained in Section 106 of the Land Revenue Code, 1968. It is further contended that the matriz certificate could not have been looked into and relied upon to reach conclusion as regards the ownership and possession of the property. This Court while admitting the appeal on 08.08.2006 has framed the following substantial questions of law:- (a) Whether the suit instituted by the plaintiffs was not maintainable in view of the bar contained in Section 106 of the Goa Land Revenue Code 1968 and whether the suit was maintainable in the absence of declaration having been sought by the plaintiffs that they were owners in possession of the suit property? (b) Whether the Matriz Certificate could have been looked into and relied upon to reach the conclusion either as to ownership or possession of the property surveyed under no. 54/2, when the Certificate of Matriz is neither the document of title nor presumptive of possession ? (c) Whether in the face of the pleadings of the plaintiffs themselves, that they were the owners of only 1/3rd share of the property surveyed under No. 54/2, the other 2/3rd share being of persons other than their ancestors, the first appellate Court could have reached the conclusion, that the plaintiffs had established ownership of the entire property and that too by resorting to the presumption under Section -110 of the Indian Evidence Act? (d) Whether in the face of the promulgated record of rights which raises the presumption of possession in favour of the appellant, the first appellate Court on the basis of the document of Matriz which stood superseded, could have reached the conclusion, that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit property? 5. So far as the first contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in terms of prayer clause (a) directing the deletion of the name of the father of defendant no. 1 appearing in the column of occupant of survey no. 54/2 is not liable to be granted in view of the specific bar contained in Section 106 of the Land Revenue Code. Section 106 of the Code provides thus:- "106. Bar of suits. No suit shall lie against the Government or any officer of the Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this Chapter or to have any such entry omitted or amended." 6. It cannot be controverted that it was impermissible for the Trial Court to grant the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in view of specific bar contained in Section 106 of the Land Revenue Code. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant therefore is justified in contending that the First Appellate Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in granting the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the plaint. The order passed by the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit in terms of prayer clause (a) of plaint deserves to be set aside and same is accordingly set aside. The plaintiffs have also contended that they are in possession of the property and that the defendant, his agents, relations, family members, or any person or persons claiming through or under him be restrained from interfering, trespassing, dumping any material or undertaking any work of construction either of temporary or permanent nature or creating any nuisance of whatsoever nature in the property by way of permanent injunction. The First Appellate Court as such shall have to deal with independently the claim raised by the plaintiffs in terms of prayer clause (b) of the plaint. The First Appellate Court as such shall have to deal with independently the claim raised by the plaintiffs in terms of prayer clause (b) of the plaint. On reading of the judgment delivered by the First Appellate Court, it appears that the First Appellate Court has mixed two issues, one referable to the claim in respect of the deletion of the name of defendant no. 1 and other one in respect of grant of the permanent injunction based on the averments made by the plaintiffs in respect of their continuous possession over the property. On reading of the judgment, it appears that both the aspects have been dealt with by the Trial Court in such fashion and the issues are interwoven to such an extent it becomes difficult to segregate the findings and conclusions on various issues. In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant in the matter touching the factual controversies which needs to be dealt with only on re-appreciation of the evidence, it would be appropriate to direct the First Appellate Court to reconsider the matter. The First Appellate Court is expected to deal with the matter afresh and consider the prayers made by the plaintiffs in terms of the prayer clause (b) of the plaint in reference to the evidence, both oral and documentary, placed on record by the respective parties. It is desirable, while exercising the powers under Section 100 of the Code, this Court shall refrain from evaluating the evidence led by the parties and deal with factual controversies. It is domain of the First Appellate Court to appreciate and evaluate evidence and decide appeal and pass judgment dealing with both findings of fact and law. In view of the above discussions, I deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the First Appellate Court to record a decision in the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. 7. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated 30.09.2005 stands quashed and set aside and the appeal stands remitted to the First Appellate Court for rendering decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court dated 30.09.2005 stands quashed and set aside and the appeal stands remitted to the First Appellate Court for rendering decision afresh in accordance with the provisions of law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. The parties agree to appear before the First Appellate Court on 14.01.2015, as such, no separate notice requiring their presence before the First Appellate Court shall be necessary. The First Appellate Court shall make endeavor to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the appearance of the parties before the First Appellate Court. The parties to the litigation shall maintain status quo prevailing as on today until the appearance of the parties before the First Appellate Court and for a period of one month thereafter with liberty to the original plaintiff to tender an application for grant of interim protection, pending hearing and disposal of appeal. Appeal Partly Allowed.