The judgment establishes the legal principle that possession of a property is prima facie proof of ownership, and the burden of proof lies on the party denying ownership.

1. The suit property came to be acquired by the Konkan Railway for putting up the railway track running through the length of Goa. A part of the track is claimed to be in the possession of several parties. The acquiring authority deposited the entire compensation which had to be apportioned between the parties. The acquisition is accepted. Claiming compensation by various parties is denied by others. Consequently Land Acquisition Case (LAC) was filed by the relevant SLAO. All the parties filed their written statements claiming possession and/or ownership. Their claims have been considered in the LAC. It is from the order of the learned Third District Judge, Margaon in the LAR Case that these first appeals have been filed.

2. There were seven parties who claimed compensation. Their claim of compensation has been considered upon raising issues with regard to their possession and/or ownership. Since all of these parties have separately challenged the order of the learned Judge in the LAC they are variously numbered in the above first appeals. It would, therefore, be proper to refer to them by their names.

3. Parties claiming compensation are:

I 1. Manguesh Ambo)

2. Kamlabai Ambo ) Ambos

3. Sitabai Ambo )

II 1. Rohidas Datta Fal Dessai ) Dessais

And

2. Vithoba Mahadev Dessai

Who claim as co-owners and/or exclusively.

III – The Communidade of Balli (Communidade)

Who claims ownership as also possession.

IV – One Valente Fernandez to whom the part of the land of Ambos was sold by Manguesh Ambo and who has not prosecuted his claim for compensation.

4. The ownership and possession of Ambos, Dessais and the Communidade would have to be decided.

5. The learned Judge in the impugned judgment also set out the claims of all the parties to prove their respective possession and/or ownership in their written statements upon which the learned Judge framed issues with regard to possession and/or ownership. The learned Judge accepted the possession of Ambos. The learned Judge rejected the claim of possession and/or ownership of Dessais and the Communidade upon considering the evidence of the parties.

6. Each of the parties led oral evidence and produced documentary evidence with regard to their claim of possession and/or ownership. The Communidade examined another witness who was an Engineer to produce a survey plan. Dessais examined their surveyor upon a survey carried on by Dessais without notice to Ambos.

7. The claim of the parties in the above first appeals would also required to be similarly considered with regard to their possession and/or ownership. The essential point of determination would be to see whether the Ambos, the Dessais or Communidade prove their respective possession and/or ownership.

8. Manguesh Ambo led evidence and produced the survey record of the property claimed to be in his possession for 30 years prior to the LAC. The survey records contained in Form Nos. I & XIV show the suit property under survey No.53/0. The name of Manguesh Ambo appeared in the occupants' column and other rights column. Ambos claim that the survey records show their possession through the years. The evidence has shown that Dessais have not challenged the survey records. The Ambos claim the presumption of the correctness of the survey records and the presumption of title in view of their long and uninterrupted possession reflected in survey records under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 which runs thus:

“110. Burden of proof as to ownership. – When the question is whether any person is owner of anything of which he is shown to be in possession the burden of proving that he is not the owner is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner”.

9. The Ambos rely upon the judgment in the case of Chief Conservator of Forests, Govt. of A.P. Vs. Collector and Ors. 2003 AIR SCC 1805 holding that in view of the long and uninterrupted possession, title to the land in their favour has to be presumed and it would be for the other claim