The case emphasized the importance of clearly establishing property boundaries and the need for documentary evidence to support ownership claims.

JUDGMENT

M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. R.G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Ms. S. Patil, Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D.J. Pangam, learned Advocate General with Ms. M. Simone Correia, Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. This second appeal was admitted on 20.11.2006 on the following substantial question of law.

"Whether the learned Courts below after finding that the appellants had proved that the appellants were the owners in possession of the suit property which according to the appellants was wrongly included in survey Nos. 98 and 97 and that the respondents had not proved that the entire land bearing Survey Nos. 97/1 and 98/1 was reserved forest known as "Cudeladongor" belonging to the Forest Department were right in dismissing the appellants' suit?"

3. By Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2015, this Court set aside the impugned Judgment and Decree and remanded the matter to the Trial Court. On remand, the Trial Court had to appoint a Commissioner and thereafter proceed to dispose off the matter.

4. However, the Judgment and Decree dated 28.08.2015 made by this Court remanding the matter to the Trial Court was challenged by the respondents before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside this Court's order dated 28.08.2015, and again, on consensual terms, issued the following directions:-

"a) the judgment and order passed by the High Court be set-aside;

b) Second Appeal be restored to the file of the High Court;

c) The High Court be requested to consider and dispose of the Second Appeal on its own merits; and

d) If a case is made out for appointment of Commissioner, the matter may be gone into by the High Court purely on merits without being influenced by the order dated 28.8.2015 passed by the High Court on the earlier occasion."

5. This is how the present second appeal came to be once again heard and is now being disposed off uninfluenced by the order dated 28.08.2015, which in any case, was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

6. By yet another order dated 06.02.2015 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 54/2015, this Court had permitted the appellants to rely upon a Government Gazette dated 14.03.2002, in support of the appeal. The contentions of both the parties on the merits of the documents were however left open for consideration at the stage of final disposal of the second appeal.

7. The appellants in this case are the original plaintiffs and the respondents are the original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.88/1996 instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge Senior Division at Quepem seeking the following reliefs:-

"a) The Judgment and Decree declaring the Plaintiff to be owners in possession of the suit property marked as Plots "A" admeasuring 17320 sq.meters, "B" admeasuring 9300 sq.meters and Plot "C" admeasuring 4800 sq.meters from Survey No.98 and Plot "A" admeasuring 11240 sq.meters, Plot "B" admeasuring 7560 sq.meters and Plot "C" admeasuring 6640 sq.meters from Survey No.97 which Plots "A" are delineated with green line, Plot "B" delineated black line on the plan of survey Number 98 and 97 which plan is annexed to the plaint as exhibit "A" to the plaint, of survey No.98 and 97 of Colomb Village taluka Sanguem.

b) For a direction to Survey Authorities to re-survey the land under survey No.97 and 98 and mark the area shown as Plot "A", "B" and "C" from survey Number 98 and Plots marks A,B and C from survey No.97 as a separate holding in the name of the Plaintiffs. Alternatively,

c) For an Order and direction from this Hon'ble Court to Survey Authorities to demarcate the land of the property "PONSOIBANDULAM" described in the Land Registration office of Quepem under No.15260 and bearing Land Revenue Office of Sanguem (Matriz) No.850 and 851.

d) Cost of the suit.

e) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court, deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

8. The defendants filed their written statement denying the case pleaded by the plaintiffs.

9. Based on the pleadings of the