Heard Shri Valmiki Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Shri M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the Respondents.

2. The above Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 278/2004. The Appellant filed the suit on the basis that he is the owner in possession of two properties situated at Village Velim, being 1/48th share of the landed property “Valado de Bapsoro” or “Valado Babsorecho Band” bearing survey no. 341/10 admeasuring 150 square metres with an area of 248 square metres being depicted as water and another portion of the same property bearing Land Registration No. 4364 surveyed under no. 341/11 which have been referred to as suit properties. It is further the case of the Appellant that an area of 113.85 square metres is depicted as water along its western boundary in the plan prepared by the Survey Department and further an area of 248 square metres as in like manner being shown in the water which otherwise form part of the property surveyed under no. 341/10. It is further the case of the Appellant that the said portions have been wrongly shown as water and, consequently, the suit came to be filed to seek rectification of the Survey Records and for a declaration that the said two portions of the property forms part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant.

3. The Respondents filed their written statements opposing the claim put forward by the Appellant and, inter alia, contending that though the Appellant has purchased the two plots bearing survey nos. 341/10 and 341/11, the areas were 150 square metres and 175 square metres beyond which there was no additional land as claimed by the Appellant. It is further their case that the area beyond the said two survey numbers on the western side do not form part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant and, consequently, the Appellant has no right therein. The Respondents as such submitted that there is no error in the depiction in the Land Survey Records and, consequently, prayed that the Appeal be dismissed. It is further the contention of the Respondents that the Appellant has encroached into the riverine land towards the western side to the extent of 452 square metres by filling it with mud, and consequently, action was sought to be taken against the Appellant.

4. The learned Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 13.02.207, dismissed the suit filed by the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

5. Shri Menezes, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has assailed the impugned Judgment essentially on the ground that the said two area admeasuring 113.85 square metres and 248 square metres form part and parcel of the property belonging to the Appellant which is surveyed under no. 341/10 and 341/11 respectively. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Appellant has produced the purchase document which shows that the property purchased by the Appellant correspond to the Matriz Records no. 3453 and 3458. Learned Counsel has further taken me through the Sale Deed executed in the year 1978 at exhibit 23 and pointed out that the portion of the property purchased by the Appellant has been duly registered in the Land Registration Office under no. 4364 and inscribed in Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No. 3453 and 3458. Learned Counsel has taken me through the boundaries shown therein and pointed out that both the boundaries as disclosed in the Matriz Record tally with the boundaries of the property purchased by the Appellant by Sale Deed and form part and parcel of the same property and an area of 113.85 square metres and 248 square metres which form part and parcel of the property belong to the Appellant has been shown as water. Learned Counsel has taken me through the Matriz Recor