The evidentiary value of title documents and the importance of public documents in establishing ownership title and boundaries.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. V.A. Lawande for the Appellants and Mr. Walikar for Respondent No.2-contesting Respondent.

2. This Second Appeal was admitted on 13th July 2012, on the following substantial question of law: Whether the conclusion of the First Appellate Court that the property belonging to the Appellants does not go to the top of hill is perverse on the face of the document of title of the Appellants at Exhibit 56?

3. The Appellants are the original Plaintiffs and the Respondents are the original Defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.39/2002/B, instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, at Quepem. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their original description in the plaint.

4. The Plaintiffs, in their suit, applied for the following reliefs:

(a) For a Judgment and Decree that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit property as described in para 4 above, surveyed under no 9 sub division no 3 and 4 and survey no.19/1 (part) of Village Balli, Taluka Quepem and recording the name of Ganba Fatti Phal Desai in occupant's column of survey No. 9/3 of Village Bali is a mistake;

b) For a Judgment and decree for resurvey the survey number 18/1 of Village Balli thereby separating and resurveying the area of 12640 sq. metres as shown on the plan at Exh.A in the name of Plaintiffs being part and parcel of the suit property “Goticachi Fondi” of the plaintiffs.

c) For any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper;

d) for costs of the suit.

5. As of today, the dispute about the property surveyed under No.9/3 and 4 does not survive. The dispute, which now survives, relates to the property surveyed under Survey No.18/1(part) of Village Balli, stated to be admeasuring 12840 sq. metres. Therefore, for the purposes of the present Appeal, it is this property bearing Survey No. 18/1 (part) admeasuring 12840 sq. metres, shall be referred to as the “suit property”.

6. The Trial Court decreed the suit vide Judgment and Decree 26th March 2009. The Comunidade of Balli-Defendant No.2 appealed to the Adhoc District Judge-1, FTC-I, Margao, and this Appeal was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No.54/2009. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 7th January 2011, the First Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court's Decree dated 26th March 2009. Hence, the present Second Appeal on the aforesaid substantial question of law.

7. The Trial Court, in this case, apart from relying upon the oral evidence, relied upon basically two documents:

(i) The Sale Deed dated 8th November 1970, by which the Plaintiffs purchased the suit property and in which the eastern boundary of the suit property is described as 'by top of the hill Limbajacho Dongor of the Communidade of Bali'; and

(ii) Land Registration document No.7085, in which the suit property is described with its eastern boundary as 'top of the hill denominated 'Limbajacho-dongor' of the Comunidade of Bally'.

8. Based upon the oral evidence, as also the aforesaid two title documents, the Trial Court concluded that the suit property of the Plaintiffs extended not just to the base of the hill described as 'Limbajacho-dongor', but, rather the same is extended up to the top of the said hill.

9. The Appellate Court has reversed the Trial Court's Decree by relying excessively on the matriz document in respect of Matriz No.81, which is the suit property and in which the eastern boundary of the suit property is described as “'Gotcafondy', bounded on East 'Nibegem Oiteral' described under No.80”.

10. Now, there is no serious dispute that 'Nibegem Oiteral' or 'Limbajacho Dongor' are both the names of the same hill. Mr. Lawande pointed out that the expression 'Limbajacho' must have had some nexus with some lemon trees. He pointed out that even 'Nibegem Oiteral' also has nexus with nimbo, which means, lemon. He has also pointed out that 'Oiteral' means a hill. Though there is no evidence to this effect, the submission appears to be reasonable and there is no seriou