The specific bar contained in Section 106 of the Land Revenue Code rendered the relief sought regarding the deletion of the defendant's name from the survey records not maintainable.

R.M. BORDE, J.

1. This is an appeal by the original defendant no. 1 objecting to the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court while dealing with Regular Civil Appeal No. 206 of 2003 decided on 30.09.2005. The plaintiffs instituted a Regular Civil Suit No. 29/98/B claiming the following reliefs:-

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to delete the name of the late father of the defendant no. 1 appearing in the column of occupant of survey no. 54/2 of village Vagurmem and insert the name of the plaintiff no. 6 as representative of the other plaintiffs and defendant nos. 2 and 3 in its place.

(b) In view of the above, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to retrain defendant no. 1, his agents, relations, family members, or any person or persons claiming through or under him from interfering, trespassing, dumping any material or undertaking any work of construction either of temporary or permanent nature or creating any nuisance of whatsoever nature in the said property by way of permanent injunction.

2. The plaintiffs come to the Court with the contention that they are the owners and possessors of the property known as 'DEG' alias 'KHAJAGI BAG' situated at Village Vagurme of Ponda Taluka which is enrolled in the matriz record under Nos. 4, 5 and 6 in the name of the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim that the property surveyed under No. 54/2 is of an area of 15000 square metres which has been wrongly entered in the name of the late father of the defendant as occupant with one Sada Anant Prabhu as its tenant. The plaintiffs has given the boundaries of the property in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the property belonged to his grand father by name Zoiba Soiru Porobo who had two sons by name Soiru Zoiba Porobo and Hori Zoiba Porobo, who along with their wives expired and the plaintiffs are their heirs to the extent of 1/3rd share. The another share to the extent of 1/3rd belonging to Pundi Babu Porobo who expired issue less some 80 years back, is possessed by the plaintiffs. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that the third share belongs to Govind Fatti Porobo and his two brothers is also possessed by the plaintiffs since last more than 40 to 50 years without there being any obstruction or opposition from any body including the defendant and the tenant. As such, the plaintiffs claim to have prescriptive title over the property. According to the plaintiffs, the name of the late father of defendant no. 1 has been wrongly inserted in the column of occupant of survey no. 54/2 who did not have any right, title or interest in respect of the property or part thereof and that the property is in peaceful enjoyment and possession of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs with these contentions approached the Court claiming the reliefs referred to in the above para.

3. The suit has been contested by defendant no. 1 by presenting written statement. The defendant contends that the relief claimed in respect of the deletion of the name of defendant from the survey records is not liable to be granted in view of Section 106 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Land Revenue Code, 1968. The defendant has also objected to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of bar of limitation. So also the defendant claims that the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The defendant has specifically averred that the property bearing survey no. 54/2 admeasuring 15000 square metres is part and parcel of the defendant's property named "Baga Cozgui or Cozgui Baga" having descriptional identity as a distinct and separate entity under Land Registration bearing No. 6177 and 505 of Book No. 16. According to the defendant, after the preparation of the survey records under Land Revenue Code, the matriz records is irrelevant and shall not be considered for any purpose. The defendant prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The trial Court on the receipt of the evidence led by the parties documentary as well as the oral was of the opinio