The main legal point established in the judgment is that the title of an immovable property has to be proved by documentary evidence, and oral evidence at variance with the documentary evidence cannot be accepted to consider the boundaries of the property. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of complying with the procedural requirements of Order 41, Rule 31 of the CPC.

The predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein (the original plaintiff) sued the appellants herein (defendants) for injunction against interference of their possession in the suit plots of land, stated to be bearing Survey Nos. 181/2 and 182/0 of Village Sal, Taluka Bicholim, Goa. The respondents herein (the plaintiffs) have continued the lis. The defendants counter claimed, claiming ownership and prayed for deletion of the plaintiffs' name in the survey records. The plaintiff’s suit came to be decreed by the Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bicholim on 9th August, 2000. The defendants' counter-claim was dismissed.

2. The defendants appealed. The appeal has been dismissed on 27th March, 2003. The defendants have filed this second appeal against the concurrent findings of fact of the plaintiffs' title in the suit property.

3. The plaintiffs' title must be first shown. If the plaintiffs do not show title, they would not be entitled to injunction claimed against interference to their possession. The defendants may not show their title in the suit. However, in the counter-claim, the defendants claim title and hence, must prove their title by documentary evidence.

4. The title of an immovable property has to be proved by documentary evidence, being documents of title and other documents, corroborating the title. The title of a property cannot be proved by merely oral evidence. The documents of title require to show the specific description of the property, to which the title is claimed. The description would essentially be by boundaries and area of the land to which the title is claimed. It may also be by circumstantial evidence of possession or occupation, but which evidence itself does not constitute a document of title. The parties have examined various witnesses about the ownership of various properties, as also the ownership of the properties adjoining the suit property. Aside from the aspect about actual possession, such part of the evidence cannot prove the title to any immovable property. Since the parties have relied upon various documents also, they must primarily show their respective title there-under, the survey records among them showing only their possession.

5. The Courts below have considered the documentary, as well as oral evidence led by the parties to uphold the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property. From such evidence, the Courts below have pinpointed two boundaries, being the eastern and southern boundaries of the suit property to accept the plaintiffs' case in respect of the entire property, particularly named and shown to be a specified area to belong to the plaintiffs as shall be seen presently. The documents of the parties would have to be read together and as a whole. It would have to be seen whether those documents would suffice to identify the entire extent of the suit property.

6. The specific question of law framed by this Court which would require to be answered, is whether the learned trial Court erred in decreeing the suit after holding that only two boundaries of the suit property tally with the documents produced by the plaintiffs. This Court shall have to examine all the documents to determine the aforesaid question of law.

7. It may be mentioned that another question of law framed by this Court is relating to the names of the suit property. The question framed is, whether it is an admitted fact that the suit properties were known as “Hansagali” or 'Cumar Gulav', the question relating to the name of the suit property would be a question of fact.

8. A further question framed by this Court is, whether failure to comply with the procedure of Order 41, Rule 31 of the C.P.C. would necessitate the suit to be remanded. It may be mentioned that in this case, the learned first appellate Court has framed two points of determination and answered them upon considering the oral and documentary evidence. Though it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the points of determination are so v