The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear evidence and concurrence of co-owners in demarcation cases, as well as the scope of second appeal on questions of law.

This is plaintiff's second appeal.

2. Plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 17/1997/B for demarcation of southern boundary line of the suit property, by appointing Head Surveyor of the Survey Department, to do the same. The plaintiff had also sought permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing compound wall on the southern boundary of the suit property or encroaching upon the suit property. The original defendant died during pendency of the suit and his legal representatives were brought on record.

3. Plaintiff's case, in short, was as follows:-

He is the owner in possession of the suit property known as “Borimollacodil Moddi” situated at Borimol in Quepem Taluka, being bounded on the east and north by Municipal road; on the west by the property of Carlos Mascarenhas, under survey no. 57/1 and on the south by the property bearing survey no. 56/1, which belongs to the defendants. The suit property bears survey no. 57/2. It was allotted to the plaintiff by way Deed of Gift and Acceptance dated 01/04/1965. The southern boundary of the suit property is safeguarded by a loose rubble stone addo and there are ten well-grown trees planted by his ancestors existing on the said boundary, which are enjoyed by the plaintiff. On 21/04/1994, the defendants cut one Jambul tree belonging to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had filed a case before Deputy Collector at Quepem for demarcation of the southern boundary and the same was demarcated twice, but the said demarcation was not acceptable to the defendant who had signed the plan under protest due to which the dispute is pending. On 14/04/1997, defendant tied a string across the southern boundary and inside the suit property. Hence the suit.

4. The original defendant, in his written statement, alleged as follows:-

The plaintiff has no locus standi. There is no cause of action. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties. It is denied, for want of knowledge, that plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit property. However, it is patently false that the suit property is safeguarded on its southern boundary by loose rubble stone addo. The loose rubble stones exist on the north-eastern boundary of the property of defendants which bears survey no. 56/1 and which is registered in the Land Registration office under nos. 16105 and 5703 of Book B-18 and which is protected by rubble stone addo on the east, west and partly on the north-western and on the southern side. This rubble stone addo was constructed by the defendants many years ago. In the year 1995, defendant had filed an application under the Land Revenue Code, 1968 before the Deputy Collector, Quepem, for resurvey and demarcation of only northeastern boundary portion of his property bearing survey no 56/1, which application was registered as Case No. LRC/Boun/4/95/599. The plaintiff also filed a counter application before the Deputy collector, Quepem, under Section 114 of the Land Revenue Code for demarcation of southern boundary of survey no. 57/2, which application was treated as Case No. LRC/Bound/3/95/600. By common Order dated 6/7/1995, both the applications were allowed. The field surveyor demarcated the entire northern boundary in respect of survey no. 56/1 and about 35 square metres of land belonging to the defendants was reclaimed from survey no. 57/2. The area of property of the defendant is 8056 square metres and whatever trees existing therein are in possession of the defendant.

5. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Quepem (trial Court) found that the plaintiff has proved that he is owner in possession of suit property, since by Deed of Gift, the suit property was gifted to him by his parents to the extent of their disposable share. Trial Court held that the surveyor Simon Pereira has correctly demarcated the boundary between survey nos. 56/1 and 57/2 and there is no boundary dispute. She further held that the plaintiff could not prove that defendant had interfered with the sout