Heard Mr. P. S. Lotlikar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. M. Salkar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.

2. The above appeal challenges the judgment passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 4/2007 dated 19.11.2007 whereby the suit filed by the respondent came to be decreed.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondent instituted a suit for declaration, correction of survey records and permanent injunction with regard to the piece of the land called "Carakol" which bears survey no.43/1. It was the contention of the respondent that when the survey of the property bearing survey no.43/1 was conducted, it was not surveyed in the name of the Government. The respondent then filed an application seeking correction of the survey records. The appellants filed their written statement disputing the claim put forward by the respondent. It was the case of the appellants that there exists property known as "Parnagaly" or "Podnangally" at Maulinguem in the village of Cotigao Village of Canacona Taluka and that after the liberation of Goa, the property was surveyed under No.43/1 admeasuring an area of 53,400 square metres. It is further their case that the property is a paddy field and that the said property was wrongly recorded as "Carakol" instead of "Parnagaly". It was further disputed that the property surveyed under No.43/1 is the property known as "Carakol". It appears that in the proceedings which were initiated before the survey authorities raising objections to the record of rights, the Additional Collector by an order dated 08.10.1998 directed the inspector of land survey to examine the matter and enter the portion of the property as claimed by the respondent in terms of the said order. Accordingly, on 23.12.2005 the survey officer bifurcated the said property into two portions, one bearing survey no.43/1 and other bearing survey no.43/l (A). The property surveyed under no.43/l (A) was entered in favour of the respondent herein whereas the remaining portion surveyed under no.43/1 was entered in the name of the appellants herein. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. But however, in terms of the provisions of Section 14(4) of the Land Revenue Code, the respondent filed the said suit inter-alia seeking for the reliefs referred to herein above.

4. The learned Judge after framing the issues and recording of evidence by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.11.2007 decreed the suit filed by the respondent. The learned Judge inter-alia held that the boundaries as shown in the land registration document and matriz document are different and further found that the property was shown as paddy field whereas the survey records show otherwise. .The learned Judge further found that the boundaries shown in the land registration certificate as far as three sides are concerned, apparently tally whereas the property on the western side shows the name of a private person which is not in accordance with the western boundary of the property surveyed under No.43/l. The learned Judge as such found that as the appellants have failed to establish that the property as claimed by them corresponds to the property surveyed under No.43/1 decreed the suit filed by the respondent. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

5. Mr. Lotlikar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment essentially on the ground that though the appellants have produced their documents of title namely the land registration certificate at Exhibit 46 Colly and the matriz document at Exhibit 47 Colly, the learned Judge has not scrutinized the said documents to ascertain the extent of the property vis-a-vis the survey records and summarily rejected the documents only on the ground that the property is shown as a paddy field. The learned