JUDGMENT : R.P. Sondurbaldota, J. The appellants are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 26/1993/B filed in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Quepem. The parties shall hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature. 2. By their suit, the plaintiffs sought declaration, that the holding under survey No. 71/3 (part), 71/4 (part) and 71/5 (part) as shown in the plan Ex.A of Assolda village of Quepem Taluka are part and parcel of their property, for a direction to the survey authorities to separate the said portion of survey nos. 71/3, 71/4 shown in plan Ex.A and record the same along with survey no.71/5 in the name of plaintiffs by deleting the names of the defendants from the occupant's column, and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their family members, relatives, agents and servants from interfering with or disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 3. The case of the plaintiffs as pleaded in the plaint is that, by the sale-deed dated 16th January, 1964 Late, Marcelino Fernandes and Late, Francisco Fernandes purchased the property known as "Culnem" or "Botvem" situate at Assolda Village. The property is also described as Registration No. 1170 and Matriz Nos. 16 and 17. The plaintiffs are the successors of Francisco and Mercelino. The property consists of paddy field and barren land having fruit and non-fruit bearing trees. The bharad portion of the property consists of plantation of cashew trees, bamboo clusters and jungle trees. According to the plaintiffs, it has been in their use and enjoyment since the date of purchase and is surveyed under number. 71/3 (part), 71/4 (part) and 71/5 (part). The paddy field lies at a level lower to the bharad land and is cultivated by the plaintiffs. The bharad land portion was wrongly surveyed as part of survey no.71/3 (part), 71(4) (part) and 71(5) (part) in the name of the defendants who claim to have obtained some land of Communidade of Assolda which is situate on the western boundary of Matriz No. 16. When the original purchasers learnt about the error in the survey, they raised objections in D.C. Case No. 78/Assolda. That was dismissed for default and appeal preferred therefrom also came to be dismissed. The second appeal preferred therefrom was also unsuccessful. When the original purchasers learnt about the error in the survey, they raised objections in D.C. Case No. 78/Assolda. That was dismissed for default and appeal preferred therefrom also came to be dismissed. The second appeal preferred therefrom was also unsuccessful. Thus, the objection to the survey had been dismissed without holding any enquiry and without adjudicating the rights of the plaintiffs. Despite the wrong entry in the revenue records, the plaintiffs continued to cultivate the paddy field and enjoy cultivation in the barren land since the time of purchase. Therefore, they sought the reliefs as described at para-2 above. 4. The defendants contested the suit contending that, the property of the plaintiffs known as "Botvem" is only a paddy field surveyed under number 69/1 to 7 and no part of property "Botvem" is included in 71/3, 71/4 and 71/5. According to them, the entire land in Survey No. 71/3 and 71/4 is their property which is known as "Culnem Mordi" and the land under Survey No. 71/5 was of Communidade which is possessed and enjoyed over the last 80 years through themselves and their predecessor in title. Though, the land under Survey No. 71/4 is shown as rice land in Survey records, no paddy is cultivated or was being cultivated thereon. The land in 71/3, 71/4 and 71/5 has always been owned and possessed by them continuously and has been in their enjoyment. As such, it has been rightly recorded in the name of the defendants. 5. According to the defendants, this property has been gifted to the father of defendant no.1, by one, Vishnu Rangaji Sheldenkar, who had received the land at Survey No. 71/3 and 71/4 under two aframentos. The land surveyed as 71/5 was of Communidade. It is towards the south of the land under second afrementos. It was brought under cultivation by Vishnu and had since then been in his possession. Through him, the defendants came into possession. 6. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff no. 12 Santan Fernandes (PW-1), Paul Mascarenhas (PW-2), Agnelo D'Silva (PW-3) and Smt. Sara Fernandes (PW-4) in support of their case. The defendants examined defendant no. 1 Shri. Mohan Xeldenkar as D.W.1. It was brought under cultivation by Vishnu and had since then been in his possession. Through him, the defendants came into possession. 6. The plaintiffs examined plaintiff no. 12 Santan Fernandes (PW-1), Paul Mascarenhas (PW-2), Agnelo D'Silva (PW-3) and Smt. Sara Fernandes (PW-4) in support of their case. The defendants examined defendant no. 1 Shri. Mohan Xeldenkar as D.W.1. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced before it, the trial Court concluded that the boundaries of the properties described in the Land Registration document do not tally with the boundaries described in Matriz survey of Matriz Nos 16 and 17, which are the boundaries mentioned in the plaint. It held that, the plaintiffs proved that, they, as the owners, are in possession of the property "Culnem or Botvem" bearing Matriz Nos. 16 and 17 with boundaries described at paras-2(a) and 2(b) of the plaintiff. The said property bears, Survey No. 71/3 (part), 71/4 (part) and 71/5 and that has been wrongly recorded in the name of defendants. It however, did not give relief of declaration to the plaintiffs with an observation that the plaintiffs had proved their claim only on the basis of revenue records and failed to prove the title by documentary evidence. As regards the defendants, in the opinion of the trial Court, the defendants had failed to prove their case. With these observations, the suit was partly decreed and only prayer clause (c ) for permanent injunction was granted. 7. Being aggrieved by the order, both sides challenged the same in the District Court. The defendants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2000 seeking dismissal of suit in it's entirety and the plaintiffs filed Cross-Objections seeking the suit to be decreed in it's entirety. The District Court, by it's judgment and order dated 8th February, 2005 had dismissed the appeal of the defendants, allowed the Cross-Objections and decreed the suit in respect of all the reliefs claimed therein. The defendants assailed that judgment and decree in Second Appeal No. 71 of 2005 before this Court. By the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2014, this Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the District Court in the First Appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, after appointing a Commissioner for local investigation and identification of the property on the basis of title documents. 8. By the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2014, this Court quashed and set aside the judgment and order of the District Court in the First Appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, after appointing a Commissioner for local investigation and identification of the property on the basis of title documents. 8. In view of the order, the District Court appointed the Inspector of Survey and Record, Quepem as Commissioner. The Commissioner, accordingly visited the site and made his report. His evidence was recorded with an opportunity to both the sides to cross-examine him. By the consent of the parties, three plans drawn by him along with his report were admitted in evidence. 9. As can be seen from the pleadings of the parties and noted by the District Court, the defendants do not dispute that the properties surveyed under No. 69/1 to 69/7 belong to the plaintiffs. The dispute is restricted to the alleged bharad-portion of the land surveyed under No. 71/3 (part), 71/4 (part) and 71/5. The plaintiffs claimed that their predecessor had purchased the property known as "Culnem" or "Botvem" vide Sale Deed dated 16th January, 1964, which is described under No. 1170 in the Land Registration Office and enrolled in the Land Revenue Office as two different additions under Matriz Nos. 16 and 17. 10. The District Court considered the pleadings between the parties, the oral evidence led by them, the documentary evidence produced by the parties and evidence of the Court Commissioner appointed pursuant to the order of this court to decide the appeal before it. It noted that as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the properties enrolled under Matriz Nos. 16 and 17 in the Taluka Revenue Office are contiguous properties and noted the following boundaries as the boundaries of the entire property enrolled under Matriz Nos. 16 and 17. On the East Property Culnem Mordy of Pundolika Naraian Sinai, enrolled under Matriz No. 18; On the West Property Culnem Mordy of communidade and boundary of Cotombi village; On the North Part of the property Musonem belonging to Vitoba Laxman Raut and others bearing Matriz No. 18; and On the South Boundary of Cotombi village and the rivulet. This position was seen confirmed by P.W.1 in his testimony. He deposed that, Matriz no.16 consists partly of paddy field and is surveyed under no. This position was seen confirmed by P.W.1 in his testimony. He deposed that, Matriz no.16 consists partly of paddy field and is surveyed under no. 71/3(part), 71/4(part) and 71/5(full) and Matriz no.17 is surveyed under no. 69/1 to 69/7. According to the plaintiffs, the two Matriz numbers constitute the property described under no. 1170. The boundaries of property no.1170 as described in the record of the Land Registration Office are : On the east Paddy field "Cunem" of Krishna Rongaji Sinai On the west Paddy field of Govind Xealem @ Pitoicaleacho mago of Essri Gutto Probo and Upasso Esso Porobo; On the north Property Mordy of Simao Candido Pantaliao Fernandes and his brothers On the south Paddy field Mordy Cunem of Putu Babu Porobo From the above, it is seen that, the boundaries of Matriz no. 16 and 17 together and property no. 1170 do not tally. The District Court, next noted, inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1 and the expert examined by the plaintiffs. It found that, all the witnesses of the plaintiffs testified the eastern and northern boundaries of the properties as per the Matriz Certificates but failed to state the survey numbers of the properties forming eastern boundary and to whom the survey numbers belong. Thus, there was no evidence led by the plaintiffs to identify the eastern boundary of their property. 11. The Court Commissioner, on the other hand, in his report, has stated, the eastern boundary of Matriz no.16 and has also given the names as per Form-II and Form-I & XIV and which read as under :- "On east survey No. 70/1. Names as per Form III : Rama Sinai Sheldekar, Anant Subrai Sinai Assoldekar, Devidas Venkatesh Sinai Assoldekar, Jaivant Shambhu Sinai Assoldekar Laxman Yeshwant Sinai Assoldekar, Shankar Yeshwant Sinai Assoldekar, Vasudev Hari Sinai Assoldekar. As per form I & XIV : Remedios Jose Mascarenhas, Margaret Estella Mascarenhas, Executive Engineer WD XIV WRD Gogal Margao, Goa. As per Form-III, the eastern boundary of the disputed portion was originally shown as the property of Seldekars and Assoldekars and as per Form-I & XIV by Remedios Mascarenhas and Margaret Estella Mascarenhas, Executive Engineer WD XIV WRD Gogal Margao, Goa. The name of Pundalik Narian Sinai, which is shown as the eastern boundary of Matriz No. 16 does not figure in this survey number. The name of Pundalik Narian Sinai, which is shown as the eastern boundary of Matriz No. 16 does not figure in this survey number. The plaintiffs, however, have approached the Court with a specific case that the disputed portion is Matriz No. 16 and its eastern boundary is the land of Pundalik Narian Sinai. There is no dispute that, the eastern boundary is 70/1. It was therefore necessary for the plaintiffs to establish that Pundalik Sinai was the owner of that property. However, no such evidence has been brought before the Court by them. 12. The District Court, then considered the evidence by the defence. It noted that, as per the defendants, the disputed portion forms part of second aframento granted to the predecessors in title of the defendants and it is their case that Survey No. 71/3 and 71/4 constitutes the aframento granted to them through predecessors in title by Communidade of Assolda. This has been confirmed by the deposition of D.W.1. He testified that, earlier the property of "Culnem Mordi" was granted in aframento to Vishnu and the same was gifted to Ganba, father of defendant no.1. Vishnu was granted two aframentos. The first aframento granted on 22nd December, 1909 had the boundaries on the West and South by the limits of Cotombi, North by property Musonem belonging to Fondu Kusta Raut Dessai and others; on the east by part of the same property "Culneamordi" belonging to Vishnu Rangaji Sinai Xeldekar and subsequently granted in aframento. He further testified that, the second aframeno was granted on 14th March, 1921 bounded on the east by uncultivated land of Ramchandra Sinai Assoldekar and others, West by the land of Vishnu, on the north by property Musonem of Fondu Kusta Raut Dessai and others and south by property of Communidade beyond which is property "Bolvem" of Vincent Paul Ferandes and limits of Cottombi village. D.W.1 produced the two grants. 13. The plaintiffs do not dispute that, property lying to the West of the disputed portion belongs to the defendants. They also do not dispute the grants in favour of Vishnu. Thus, the disputed portion falls in the second aframento which was granted on 14th March, 1921. The document of grant gives the measurements of the sides and the total area of the ground. The District Court noted that, the Matriz document cannot form basis for title to a person. They also do not dispute the grants in favour of Vishnu. Thus, the disputed portion falls in the second aframento which was granted on 14th March, 1921. The document of grant gives the measurements of the sides and the total area of the ground. The District Court noted that, the Matriz document cannot form basis for title to a person. Also, the sale-deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs do not give the boundaries of the property sold. The sale-deeds describe the property by Matriz numbers. The boundaries of the two Matriz numbers described in the revenue records do not tally with the boundaries of the property described in the Land Registration Office under No. 1170. In that case, the District Court accepted the grant made by Communidade produced by the defendants because it is an official document, finally approved by the Governor under the Code of Communidade. Thus, the District Court is seen to have considered the entire evidence on record in detail to observe at the conclusion that the evidence of the plaintiffs, as well as, the expert witness does not identify the portion claimed by them. 14. The appellants seek to challenge the impugned order on, as many as, thirteen grounds from Serial No.A to Serial No.M, out of which, all the grounds, except, one are based on appreciation of facts by the District Court. As such, the same would be outside the scope of consideration in the Second Appeal. By Ground-B, the appellants seek to allege that, the Appellate Court has done the exercise of identifying the suit property on its own and by not considering the report of the Court Commissioner, which is against the mandate and direction of this Court in the order dated 1st July, 2014 passed in Second Appeal No. 71 of 2005. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order does not establish this ground. It is clear therefrom that, the District Court has considered, not only the evidence led by the parties but also the report of the Commissioner. Thus, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal for consideration of the Court. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed.