JUDGMENT :

C.V. Bhadang, J.

The challenge in this appeal, at the instance of the appellant/original plaintiff, is to the concurrent finding of dismissal of the suit filed by the appellant, by the Courts below.

2. The appellant had filed Regular Civil Suit No.81/88 (Old R.C.S. No.39/1984) against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge Junior Division at Canacona for injunction restraining the respondents from cutting or transporting any trees from the suit property and from interfering with the same in any manner. In paragraph 1 of the plaint the suit property is described as under :

(a) "XEDIFOND" or 'DEODICHO FONDO" described in the Land Registration office under No.21317 and enrolled in the Land Revenue Office under No.610. It is bounded on the east by Thalnintil Ran registered in the Revenue Roll under No.599 and on the west and south by sweet water river and on the north by Tisreanch Nhoi (river).

(b) "PALIEM" or "PALIEM VAINGONA' described in the Land Registration Office under No.19438 and in the Land Revenue Office under No.609. It is bounded on the east, west and south by sweet water river and on the north by the property "XEDIFONDO" of the plaintiffs and "USMOSTAL" off the defendants These two properties are hereinafter referred to as "the suit properties".

3. According to the appellant the whole of "Paliem" or "Paleim Vaingona" and a part of property "Xedifondo" or "Deddicho Fondo" lies in the western portion of survey no. 228/1 of Gaondongrem village of Canacona Taluka and the remaining part of "Xedifondo" or "Deddicho Fondo" lies in survey no. 229 of the same village. Some other persons are also having their lands which are part of survey no.228/1 and survey no 229.

According to the appellant, the respondent without any right, tittle or interest stared felling trees in the suit property on 11/2/1984 which led the appellant to file the suit as aforesaid.

4. The respondents filed a written statement and resisted the suit. The respondents denied the description/identification of the property as set out in para one of the plaint. According to the respondents, the property of the appellant lies only in survey no.229/1 and not in any other survey number. It was claimed that the defendant no.3 cut and transported 20 truck loads of fire wood in the month of September-October 1983 under licence issued by the Forest Department on 7/7/1983. It was contended that the forest produce was cut from the property known as "Usmostal" alias "Peddamol". In short, according to the respondents all their property is surveyed under survey no.228/1 and 229. The forest produce was not cut from the property belonging to the appellant.

5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned trial court framed as may as 10 issues and except issue nos.6, 7 and 8 answered all other issues in the negative. The learned trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish that he is the owner in possession of the property described in para one of the plaint and on the contrary found that the original defendant no.3 had established that the forest produce was cut under licence from the forest department from the property known as "Usmostal" alias "Peddamol". In that view of the matter the suit came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 21/4/1994.

6. The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal no.33/1994. The learned District Judge framed two points for consideration, namely, (I) whether the appellant/plaintiff proves that the suit properties are surveyed under survey no.228/1 and (II) Whether the appellant/ plaintiff is entitled for injunction as claimed. The District Judge answered both the points in the negative and dismissed the appeal, which brings the appellant to this Court.

7. I have heard Shri Usgaonkar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties,