F.M. Reis, J.

1. Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 1, 1a, 2, 2a 4, 4a, 11a(1) to 11a(8), 13 and 13a and Shri C.A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 5, 6, 6a, 8 and 9.

2. At the outset Shri M.P. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 4, upon instructions of the Respondent no. 4, seeks leave to withdraw the Counter Claim filed by the Respondent no. 4 against the Appellants herein in respect of the portion of the property surveyed under no. 79/2010 without prejudice to his defence in the suit.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the Appellants are as follows:

The Appellants filed Regular Civil Suit No. 57/1986/D, for a declaration, demarcation and injunction on the ground that they are the owners in possession of the property known as "Peddachem Orda quarta-parte e quarta-parte de casas de morada com seu patio e quintal", situated at Utorda, registered in the Land Registration Office under no. 11413 in the Book B-43 old, wherein the residential house of the Appellants is located. During the pendency of the suit, the Appellants moved various applications for amendment, inter alia, to introduce a claim to remove the encroachments carried out by the original defendant no. 14 and also on the ground that the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 had cut trees from the property of the Appellants on 27.09.1995 and new plantations were carried out by the original defendant nos. 6 and 8. The Appellants relied upon documents of title in support of their case and, inter alia, alleged that the Respondents were interfering with their property and, consequently, prayed for demarcation, declaration and an injunction in respect of the said property.

4. The suit was resisted by the Respondents by filing their written statements and denying that any part of the Appellants' property is included in the property surveyed in the Survey Records under the Land Revenue Code. As pointed out herein above, the Respondent no. 4 along with his written statement also filed a Counter Claim to demolish the structures put up by the Appellants in the property surveyed under no. 179/10 belonging to him together with the consequent relief of restoration of possession. The suit went for trial after issues were framed and by the impugned Judgment dated 03.10.2004, the learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Appellants have failed to prove that the property is wrongly surveyed and further on the ground that the boundaries of the suit property were not established by the Appellants at loco. The learned Trial Judge however decreed the Counter Claim filed by the Respondent no. 4 and directed the restoration of the portion of the property surveyed under no. 179/10. The Appellants preferred an Appeal before the Lower Appellate Court which came to be disposed of by Judgment and Decree dated 10.12.2004 thereby dismissing the Appeal preferred by the Appellants. A Second Appeal was filed in this Court being Second Appeal no. 63 of 2008 whereas Respondent no. 4 also preferred the Second Appeal no. 74 of 2008. The Second Appeals were disposed of by Judgment dated 16.07.2010 thereby setting aside the Judgments passed by the Lower Appellate Court and remanding the matter to the learned District Court for deciding the appeal afresh. The learned District Judge by Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.2012, dismissed the Appeal and thereby the Counter Claim was decreed. Being aggrieved by the said Judgments, the Appellants have preferred the present Second Appeal.

5. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants has extensively taken me through the Judgments passed by the Courts below and pointed out that the Courts below have misconstrued the land registration document as well as the title documents produced by the Appellants to erroneously come to the conclusion that the Appellants hav