JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri P. Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents. 2. The above Appeal came to be admitted by an Order dated 20.11.2006 on the following substantial question of law : (i) Whether the learned Courts below after finding that the appellants had proved that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit property which according to the appellants was wrongly included in survey nos. 98 and 97 and that the respondents had not proved that the entire land bearing Survey nos. 97/1 and 98/1 was reserved forest known as "Cudeladongor" belonging to the Forest Department were right in dismissing the appellants' suit ? 3. Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, has pointed out that the Appellants are the owners in possession of a property known as "Ponsoibandulam" or "Zazabandavangon" situated at Colomb which is described in the Land Registration Office under no. 15260 and inscribed with Taluka Revenue Office under no.850 and 851 which was purchased pursuant to a Sale Deed dated 07.02.1972 from the original owners Shri Sagun Naik Khurado and his wife. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it is the case of the Appellants that the said property purchased by the Appellants is situated in a portion of the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98 of the said Village. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants had identified the said portion of the property purchased by them in the plan produced on record at exhibit Pw. 17. Learned Counsel further pointed out that both the Courts below whilst examining the ownership and title claimed by the Appellants have come to the conclusion that the Appellants are the owners of the suit property. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Judgments passed by the Courts below to point out that the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellants have not identified the said property viz a viz the claim of the Appellants that such property is located in the portion of the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Judgments passed by the Courts below to point out that the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellants have not identified the said property viz a viz the claim of the Appellants that such property is located in the portion of the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98. Learned Counsel further submits that as the property was wrongly surveyed in the name of the Government, the Appellants filed proceedings under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code for correction of the Survey Records which were initially allowed by the Inspector of Survey. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellate Authorities under the Land Revenue Code as well as the Tribunal have non-suited the Appellants with regard to such claim of the Appellants which forced the Appellants to file the suit challenging the Orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though the Appellants have examined a Surveyor, on untenable grounds essentially that the boundaries of the property have not been identified by the Surveyor, the suit was dismissed. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Appellants have also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code to produce additional documents which, according to him, clearly establishes that the claim of the Respondents that the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98 forms part of the property known as "Cudeladongor" is not correct. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the Notification of the year 2002 in respect of the claim of the Respondents with regard to the forest known as "Cudeladongor", to point out that the said Notification itself suggests that such forest does not include the said property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98. Learned Counsel further pointed out that both the Courts below have also come to the conclusion that the Respondents have failed to establish that the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98 forms part of the forest "Cudeladongor". Learned Counsel as such submits that in such circumstances it is well settled that when there is a dispute with regard to the identity or demarcation of the property, the Court has to always appoint a Commissioner to submit a report based on the respective claims of the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the dispute in controversy. Learned Counsel as such submits that in such circumstances it is well settled that when there is a dispute with regard to the identity or demarcation of the property, the Court has to always appoint a Commissioner to submit a report based on the respective claims of the parties and thereafter proceed to decide the dispute in controversy. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Courts below have also relied upon the area in the Matriz Record which is untenable as it is well settled that boundaries will prevail over the area in the Matriz Records. Learned Counsel further pointed out that in any event, the area shown in the Matriz Records are only for the purpose of showing the areas which are amenable for revenue. Learned Counsel further pointed out that it was incumbent upon the Courts below to consider the boundaries of the property as reflected in the title documents of the Appellants and examined such boundaries at loco vis a vis the areas as shown in the Survey Records in respect of the properties surveyed under no. 97 and 98. Learned Counsel further pointed out that having failed to carry out such exercise, the findings of the learned Judge are perverse and, as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned Counsel pointed out that the substantial question of law framed by this Court has to be answered in favour of the Appellants as once the Courts have come to the conclusion that the Appellants are the owners of the suit property, the question of non-suiting the Appellants on the erroneous ground that the identity of the property has not been established, is patently erroneous. 4. On the other hand, Shri Faldessai, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents, has supported the impugned Judgment. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that both the Courts below upon appreciating the evidence on record, has come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish the identity of the suit property as claimed by the Appellants. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that the property bearing survey nos. 97 and 98 form part of the forest land belonging to the Respondents known as "Cudeladongor". Learned Addl. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that the property bearing survey nos. 97 and 98 form part of the forest land belonging to the Respondents known as "Cudeladongor". Learned Addl. Government Advocate pointed out that as far as the fresh Notification produced by the Appellants during the pendency of the above Appeal is concerned, such Notification cannot in any way help the Appellants to establish their case. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that as the Appellants have failed to establish that the property as claimed by the Appellants on the basis of the Land Registration documents and the Sale deed is part of the property surveyed under nos. 97 and 98, and, as such, the claim of the Appellants is totally untenable. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has thereafter taken me through the Judgments passed by the Trial Court to point out that the learned Judge has correctly come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish the identity of the property vis a vis the claim of the Appellants as that it is a part of the property surveyed under no. 97 and 98 belongs to the Appellants. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed that the property surveyed under no. 97 and 09 consists of forest trees which conclusively establish that the property belongs to the Respondents. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further pointed out that as the Courts below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and have concurrently come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish the ownership and possession of the suit property and, as such, the question of remanding the matter for further consideration would not at all be justified. Learned Addl. Government Advocate as such submits that the substantial question of law framed by this Court be answered in favour of the Respondents and the Appeal be rejected. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. On perusal of the findings arrived at by the Courts below, both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Appellants have established their ownership with regard to the suit property. As rightly pointed out by Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents the suit property was described at para 1 of the plaint, as one described in the Land Registration Office under no. 15260 bearing Matriz nos. As rightly pointed out by Learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents the suit property was described at para 1 of the plaint, as one described in the Land Registration Office under no. 15260 bearing Matriz nos. 850 and 851. The survey numbers were not mentioned in said paragraph. In such circumstances, merely because both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Appellants are the owners of the suit property would not by itself suggest that such property would include part of the property surveyed under no. 97 and 98. 6. Be that as it may, on perusal of the findings of both the Courts below whilst examining the material on record, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that the Appellants have failed to establish the identity of the property vis a vis the title documents and the Survey Records. It is not disputed that the proceedings under Section 14 of the Land Revenue Code were initiated by the Appellants before the competent authorities. In such circumstances, even before the promulgation of the Survey Record, the proceedings to correct the Survey Records were already initiated by the Appellants. These proceedings proceeded in the Appellants filing the suit in terms of Section 14(3) of the Land Revenue Code challenging the Orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. In such circumstances, the entries in the Survey Records relied upon by the Respondents cannot by itself establish that the appellants are precluded to claim that part of the said property belongs to the Appellants. In the present case, no doubt, prima facie, on perusal of the plan produced by the Appellants, the boundaries as shown in the Land Registration Office may not necessarily include the extent of the area as claimed by the Appellants, nevertheless, taking note of the findings of the Courts below that the appellants had established the ownership of the suit property, it was incumbent upon the learned Trial Judge to appoint a Commissioner to identify the boundaries as shown in the title document vis a vis the Survey Records. It is well settled that the boundaries in the Land Registration Office would prevail upon the boundaries as shown in the Matriz Records. It is well settled that the boundaries in the Land Registration Office would prevail upon the boundaries as shown in the Matriz Records. In such circumstances, taking note of the provisions of Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code, I find that the learned Judge had to appoint a Commissioner to assist the Court to locate the boundaries as shown in the Land Registration Office vis a vis the Survey Records. This was necessary moreso when the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Respondents had also failed to establish their contention that the forest known as "Cudeladongor" forms part of the property surveyed under no. 97 and 98, Apart from that, the Notification of the year 2002 which has been produced by the Appellants would in fact, prima facie, support the contention of the Appellants that the forest known as "Cudeladongor" does not extend to the property surveyed under no. 97 and 98. But, however, such Notification will also have to be examined in the light of the Notification which the Respondents have produced on record of the year 1999. In the said Notification, the property surveyed under no. 97 and 98 is also shown to be the forest land. In such circumstances, considering the diversity and the controversy with regard to the identity of the property as claimed by the Appellants, I find that the learned Judge ought to have appointed a Commissioner to identify the property on the basis of the title document produced on record as claimed by the Appellants. The Lower Appellate Court while examining the Appeal preferred by the Appellants, has only confirmed the findings of the learned Trial Judge without considering the material produced on record. In such circumstances and in the peculiar facts of the present case and taking note of the findings of the Courts below to the effect that the Appellants and the Respondents have not established their respective claims, I find it appropriate to quash and set aside the Judgments passed by the Courts below and remit the matter to decide the suit afresh after appointing a Commissioner to identify the suit property in the light of the observations made herein above. 7. Considering the change of jurisdiction during the pendency of the above Appeal, such suit will have to be decided by the learned District Judge in terms of the amendment to the Civil Courts Act. 7. Considering the change of jurisdiction during the pendency of the above Appeal, such suit will have to be decided by the learned District Judge in terms of the amendment to the Civil Courts Act. In such circumstances, both the Counsel submit that the Director of the Land Survey be directed to depute a competent Surveyor to be appointed as a Commissioner to carry out the exercise as mentioned herein above. 8. In view of the above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgments dated 14.02.2002 and 21.09.2005 passed by the learned Trial Judge and the First Appellate Court, are quashed and set aside. (iii) Special Civil Suit no. 88 of 1996 is restored to the file of the learned District Court. (iv) The learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, is directed to decide the suit afresh in the light of the observations made herein above. (v) Appeal is disposed of accordingly with no Orders as to costs. (vi) The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge on 05.10.2015 at 10.00 a.m.