JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 3 to 8. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment, order and decree dated 07/01/2013 passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge-2, FTC-II, Margao (First Appellate Court) in Regular Civil Appeal No. 135/2012 and against the judgment, order and decree dated 31/07/2012 passed by the learned Adhoc Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao ('trial Court') in Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2001/I. 3. The appellants are the plaintiffs, whereas the respondents are the defendants in the said Regular Civil Suit No. 208/2001/I. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as per their status in the said suit. 4. The plaintiffs had filed the said suit for division and demarcation of the suit property and for fixation of separate boundary line in between the southern half and northern half of the suit property including the respective residential portions of the house standing therein and corresponding to its middle separatory wall, by stone marks, by metes and bound, being the southern half to the heirs of Jose Santan and northern half to the heirs of Minguel Joao. It was further prayed that the Survey Authority be directed to give separate number of subdivisions to each of the said halves and depict them in the survey plan and in the record of rights with respective names. 5. The case of the plaintiffs was as follows: At Curtorim, there is a property known as “Cabeceira de Ambeagaly” originally belonging to late Andre Caetano Fernandes. Said Andre Fernandes had sold half of the said property to Jose Costa Andrade and remaining half was divided into five plots in sequence from North to South and surveyed under number 149/4 and 151/1 to 151/4. Upon the death of said Andre Fernandes, father of Minguel Joao Fernandes and Jose Santan Fernandes, plot no.1 of the said property, was described under item no. 9, in inventory proceedings and allotted to his son Minguel Joao and plot no. 3 was allotted to the brother of Minguel i.e. Jose Santan, since plot No. 2 allotted to Minguel was very big as compared to plot No.3 allotted to Jose Santan. Minguel and Jose Santan enjoyed it in common. Subsequently, house was constructed in plot no.1 by both the said brothers namely Minguel and Jose Santan with middle separatory wall. 3 was allotted to the brother of Minguel i.e. Jose Santan, since plot No. 2 allotted to Minguel was very big as compared to plot No.3 allotted to Jose Santan. Minguel and Jose Santan enjoyed it in common. Subsequently, house was constructed in plot no.1 by both the said brothers namely Minguel and Jose Santan with middle separatory wall. After the death of Jose Santan, some dispute arose amongst the families of both the brothers and the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 9/1981/D was filed by Minguel and his wife against Milagrina, widow of Jose Santan and her sons. By judgment and decree dated 25/04/1996 passed in the said Civil Suit, the southern part of the house was held to be belonging to family of Jose Santan, whereas northern part to the family of Minguel Joao. The plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2, who are enjoying and possessing their part of the house and respective portion of the property, being children of Jose Santan, have made extension at the backside of their portion and the defendants no. 3 to 9 being children of Minguel Joao extended their portion at the backside and all of them did this long back without objection from whomsoever. In April, 2001, the plaintiff tried to get the said property divided and demarcated, but in vain. They tried to get the lines of the said property demarcated in the portions in their possession corresponding to southern side half part of the said plot under survey No. 149/4 from northern side half portion by means of stone mark and by metes and bounds and also tried to get their names inserted as also of defendants no. 1 and 2 in the record of rights. Hence, the suit. 6. Defendants no. 3 to 8 filed their written statement in which they admitted that half of the property Cabeceira de Ambeagaly was sold by Andre Caetano Fernandes to Jose Costa Andrade and the remaining half was divided into 5 plots in sequence. However, the said defendants denied the boundaries of the said property and that they along with plaintiffs enjoyed plots no. 2 and 3 in common. They also denied that the house was constructed jointly by Minguel Joao Fernandes and his brother Jose Santan Fernandes. However, the said defendants denied the boundaries of the said property and that they along with plaintiffs enjoyed plots no. 2 and 3 in common. They also denied that the house was constructed jointly by Minguel Joao Fernandes and his brother Jose Santan Fernandes. The said defendants alleged that the said house was constructed by said Minguel Joao Fernandes and that Jose Santan Fernandes, being the elder brother of Minguel Joao Fernandes, said Minguel had allowed his brother Jose Santan and his family members to reside in the portion of the suit house. They further alleged that plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2, who are legal representatives of said Jose Santan Fernandes are occupying a portion of the house and that the said defendants are occupying green portion and yellow portion as shown on the plan and are using or possessing a total area of 632 square metres as shown in the plan. They alleged that the area including the portion of the house which is in possession of the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 admeasures 623 square metres and the same is shown in green and yellow colour on the plan. They, therefore, stated that the plaintiffs along with defendants no.1 and 2 are jointly entitled for the said area of 623 square metres which is shown with green and yellow colour on the plan. They denied that the plaintiffs are entitled to half of the said property bearing Survey No. 149/4. They specifically stated that they are entitled for 1102 square metres which is situated towards northern side of the said area of 623 square metres. 7. Defendants no.1 and 2, in their written statement, appear to have admitted the case of the plaintiffs. However, they denied that the plaintiff had made efforts in April 2001 to get the division and demarcation of the northern half and southern half of the suit property. They alleged that they have common interest in the property. 8. As per the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that in Inventario of Andre Fernandes, plot No. 1 was allotted to Miguel Joao Instead of Miguel & Jose Santana, however they enjoyed it in common? 2. They alleged that they have common interest in the property. 8. As per the rival contentions of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that in Inventario of Andre Fernandes, plot No. 1 was allotted to Miguel Joao Instead of Miguel & Jose Santana, however they enjoyed it in common? 2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the house was constructed by both brothers with middle separatory wall and Decree in Suit 9/81-D was passed on 25/4/96 deciding that southern part of house belongs to Jose Santana and northern part to Miguel Joao? 3. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Plaintiffs have made extensions at the back side of their portion which is in possession and enjoyment since long without obstruction? 4. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that children of Jose Santana and his wife and children of Miguel Joao have also extended at the back side of their portion since long without obstructions? 5. Whether the Defendants prove that the Plaintiffs alongwith Defendant No. 1 and 2 are jointly entitled for an area of 623 sq. mts. shown in green and yellow colour on the plan annexed? 6. Whether the Defendants prove that they are alone entitled for an area of 1102 sq. mts. Situated towards the northern side of the area of 623 sq.mts.? 7. What relief? What order? 9. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff no.1 as PW1, Shri John Cardozo as PW2 and Jose Paulo Rodrigues as PW3. Defendants no. 1 and 2 examined defendant no.1, as DW1. Defendants no. 3 to 8 examined defendant no. 3 as DW2 and one Joaquim Santana Rodrigues as DW3. Defendant no. 8 also examined himself as DW4. 10. The learned trial Court found that in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/1989/D, the Court had decided that said Jose Santana Fernandes acquired title to the portion of the house situated in survey No. 149/4 of Curtorim village, by adverse possession. The trial Court further observed that in the said suit no. 9/1989/D, the Court observed that admittedly even after partition, the defendants (the plaintiffs of the present case) are in possession of the suit portion of the house along with the land surrounding it. The trial Court further observed that in the said suit no. 9/1989/D, the Court observed that admittedly even after partition, the defendants (the plaintiffs of the present case) are in possession of the suit portion of the house along with the land surrounding it. The trial Court, therefore, held that one can say that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 are entitled to the portion of the house in their possession and the land underneath the house and nothing beyond it. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs did not produce any plan showing the line of partition as claimed by them and in the cross-examination, the plaintiffs have admitted that they have been given right only to the part of the house situated on the southern side. The trial Court held that besides the right to the portion of the said house which is acquired by the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2, by adverse possession, the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2 do not have any other right over the said plots no. 1, 2 and 3. The trial Court found that the inventory proceedings initiated upon the death of Andre Fernandes had attained finality as the same was not challenged. The trial Court found that provision of Order VII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. has been violated by the plaintiffs and on that count itself, the plaint should be rejected. In this regard, the trial Court relied upon “Ambanna Vs. Ghanteappa”, [ AIR 1999 KAR 421 ]. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs have not described the property by metes and bounds and have not identified the same. The trial Court further held that the plaintiffs have not pleaded as to which of the portion or area, they are entitled. The plaintiffs also did not attach a plan to show as to which portion they are claiming in inventory proceedings. The trial Court found that the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs do not prove the case of the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that DW1, defendant no.1 is otherwise together with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also did not attach a plan to show as to which portion they are claiming in inventory proceedings. The trial Court found that the witnesses examined by the plaintiffs do not prove the case of the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that DW1, defendant no.1 is otherwise together with the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that the evidence on record both oral as well as documentary establishes that the heirs of Minguel Joao Fernandes are entitled to an area of 1102 square metres which is situated towards northern side and the heirs of Jose Santan Fernandes are entitled only to an area of 623 square metres which is lying towards the southern side. The trial Court, insofar as the extension at backside of the respective portions allegedly in possession of the parties is concerned, found that no relief has been sought in respect of the said portions and no sketch has been produced to show the same. Issues no. 1, 5 and 6, above, came to be answered in the affirmative whereas the issues no. 2, 3 and 4 have been answered in the negative. Consequently, the suit came to be dismissed. 11. Against the said judgment and decree dated 31/07/2012 passed by the trial Court, the plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Appeal No.135/2012. The learned First Appellate Court framed the following points for determination: “1. Whether the Plaintiffs are the owners-in-possession of the southern half of the suit property? 2. Whether the Judgment and Decree are illegal and therefore warrant interference in appeal ?” 12. The First Appellate Court held that there is no dispute regarding the said house since the same has been settled vide judgment and decree dated 25/04/1996 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/1981/D. The First Appellate Court found that the suit filed by Minguel and his wife for eviction and compensation was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao and it was held in the said suit that the defendants have acquired a prescriptive right to the said house occupied by Jose Santan Fernandes. The First Appellate Court found that nowhere in the said judgment it was held that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit portion of the house along with the land surrounding it. The First Appellate Court found that nowhere in the said judgment it was held that the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit portion of the house along with the land surrounding it. The First Appellate Court also held that the plaintiffs have not produced any plan showing the actual area claimed by them and, therefore, they have failed to prove that they are the owners in possession of the land corresponding to southern half part of the suit plot under Survey No.149/4. The First Appellate Court held that the judgment and order dated 25/04/1996 does not help the plaintiffs in any way since it refers to the house only occupied by the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of the so called admission made by DW2 Joao Fernandes. The First Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the plot no.1 which was admittedly allotted to Minguel Joao Fernandes was wrongly allotted to them instead of being allotted to Minguel and Jose Santan Fernandes and that the plaintiffs along with defendants no. 1 and 2 are jointly entitled for southern half of the said plot. The First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs have not sought for any declaration that the inventory proceedings initiated upon the death of Andre Fernandes are null and void and that they along with defendants no.1 and 2 are entitled to half of the said property. The First Appellate Court further found that the Survey plan produced at Exhibit 39 does not show any lines of partition in between insofar as the suit property is concerned nor line shown at points A to A at exhibit 39 divides the said property into two equal portions. The First Appellate Court observed that the judgment and order dated 25/04/1996 in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/1981/D had only permitted the plaintiffs a title by adverse possession to the portion of the house occupied by them and defendants no.1 and 2. According to the First Appellate Court, however, the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 have failed to show the actual area in their possession and also they did not produce any document of title. According to the First Appellate Court, however, the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 and 2 have failed to show the actual area in their possession and also they did not produce any document of title. The First Appellate Court, therefore, held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their case and that the trial Court considered the case of the plaintiffs in proper perspective and correctly held that the plaintiffs have failed to file any plan showing the line of partition claimed by them. The First Appellate Court found that there was no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and order passed by the trial Court. The point no. 1 came to be answered in the negative. The appeal, therefore, came to be dismissed. 13. Mr. Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs submitted that in the promulgated survey Form No. I & XIV of the suit property, the names of only two persons as co-owners are recorded as occupants of an area of 1725 square metres. He further submitted that the defendants had at least clearly admitted that the plaintiffs are entitled to an area of 623 square metres which is shown in green and yellow colour on the plan annexed to the written statement. He, therefore, submitted that the suit ought to have been partly decreed under Order XII, Rule 6 of C.P.C., on admission. He submitted that since there is admission insofar as the area of 623 square metres, difference in area was only about 200 square metres more. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that the trial Court ought to have passed a preliminary decree under Order XX, Rule 18 of C.P.C. and then followed the further procedure since there was admission of co-ownership of the plaintiffs by the contesting defendants. Learned Counsel further submitted that the Courts below have misread the oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 admitting the case of the plaintiffs. Learned Counsel urged that the Courts below misread and misconstrued the judgment and order dated 25/04/1996 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 9/81/D According to him, therefore, the judgments of lowers Courts are perverse and arbitrary and bound to be quashed and set aside. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants no. 3 to 8 submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by two Courts below. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Godinho, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of defendants no. 3 to 8 submitted that there are concurrent findings of facts rendered by two Courts below. He submitted that there were inventory proceedings in this case in which the property was allotted to the said defendants and, therefore, the question of filing suit for partition did not arise. The learned Counsel submitted that there may be no dispute insofar as an area of 623 square metres is concerned. However, he added that it was for the plaintiffs to have amended the plaint and claimed the said area of 623 square metres by properly identifying the same on the sketch. He, therefore, urged that no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal and hence, the appeal is bound to be dismissed. 15. I have gone through the material on record. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for both the parties. 16. I am of the view that the Courts below have arrived at concurrent findings insofar as the factual matrix is concerned and there is absolutely no perversity in the said findings rendered by both the Courts. In the Regular Civil Suit No.9/81/D, the learned Civil judge Junior Division, has held that though in the inventory proceedings, the plot in which the residential house is situated was allotted to Minguel Joao Fernandes, however, the legal representatives of late Jose Santan Fernandes have acquired title to the portion of the house occupied by them, by adverse possession. The said Suit pertained only to the residential house, though there is observation made by the learned judge that admittedly, even after partition, the legal representatives of Jose Santan Fernandes are in possession of suit portion of the house along with the land surrounding it. However, there is no finding in the said suit that the legal representatives of late Jose Santana Fernandes (plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2) are entitled to and have acquired title to half of the house along with half of the portion of survey no. 149/4 lying to the southern side, by adverse possession. As has been rightly held by the Courts below, the plaintiffs have failed to identify the actual portion claimed by them. The plaintiffs ought to have produced plan showing the portion claimed by them along with defendants no. 149/4 lying to the southern side, by adverse possession. As has been rightly held by the Courts below, the plaintiffs have failed to identify the actual portion claimed by them. The plaintiffs ought to have produced plan showing the portion claimed by them along with defendants no. 1 and 2 and ought to have proved the same. A perusal of the Survey Plan, which is at exhibit 39 reveals that there are no lines of any partition in the suit property. Merely because in the judgment and order dated 25/04/1996, it is held that the plaintiffs and defendants no. 1 and 2 have title by adverse possession to the portion of the house occupied by them along with the land surrounding the same, that does not prove the claim of the plaintiffs as made in the present matter. The defendants no.1 and 2 had supported the plaintiffs. But, they had not shown the actual area in their possession. The claim of the plaintiffs and the defendants no. 1 and 2 is to equal half of the property bearing survey no. 149/4, including the house, which is the southern half. It is true that the defendants no. 3 to 8 had alleged that the plaintiffs occupy the southern part of the house and the area there around admeasuring 623 square metres. But, as stated above, that was not the claim of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the question of passing a preliminary decree under Order XX, Rule 18 of C.P.C., does not arise. If the plaintiffs were satisfied with the alleged admission made by the said defendants insofar as the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the area of 623 square metres is concerned, they ought to have amended the plaint and ought to have prayed before the trial Court to decree the suit on admission. The claim of the plaintiffs in the suit did not pertain to the area of only 623 square metres. The plaintiffs along with defendants no.1 and 2 had claimed half of the suit property which forms the southern half. Therefore, the question of passing some decree on admission at the initial stage, did not arise. It is not merely the evidence of DW1 and DW2 where there are some admissions made with regard to the case of the plaintiffs, which has to be considered. Therefore, the question of passing some decree on admission at the initial stage, did not arise. It is not merely the evidence of DW1 and DW2 where there are some admissions made with regard to the case of the plaintiffs, which has to be considered. The said admissions are not regarding legal right of the parties, respectively, to half of the property. The evidence has to be considered as a whole and after doing so, the only conclusion, which arises is that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to identify the portion claimed by them along with the defendants no. 1 and 2. In the circumstances above, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The findings on facts as rendered by the Courts below are concurrent and no perversity as such has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 17. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.