1. Heard Shri S. D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. The above appeal came to be admitted by an order dated 20th January, 2009, on the following substantial questions of law:

1. Whether it was necessary for the courts below to have framed a issue/point for determination as to which party was in possession of the disputed portion?

2. Whether the courts below should have considered the evidence on record to find out which party was in possession and that having not been done, whether the judgment and order passed by the courts below should be said to be perverse?

3. Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that there is a boundary dispute between the property belonging to the appellants and the respondent as, according to him, the property of the appellants is surveyed under No.58/9 of village Sernabatim and a portion thereof is surveyed under No.59/1A. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the demarcating line of the property of the appellants was a drop of nearly one metre in height, which was accepted to be the boundary line bet