The appellants failed to establish title to the property; their claims were not supported by adequate evidence or identification of the property.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, Mr. Shivan Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents in Second Appeal nos. 25 and 28 to 31 of 2009 and Shri R. G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in Second Appeal no. 60 of 2010.

2. Shri Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants, in support of the above Appeal and the substantial questions of law framed by this Court, has pointed out that before the learned Lower Appellate Court, the Appellants had produced the document of the Land Registration Records pertaining to the property described under no. 6352 which, according to the Appellants, corresponds to the suit property. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the Judgment of the Lower Appellate Court to point out that though an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed by the Appellants which was allowed granting leave to the Appellants to produce such document, the learned Judge has erroneously taken a view that such document was not produced and, consequently, the Land Registration document was not considered whilst passing the impugned Judgment. Learned Counsel further pointed out that this itself vitiates the findings of the Lower Appellate Court to the effect that the Appellants have failed to establish their claim with regard to the disputed property. Learned Counsel has thereafter extensively taken me through the documents on record to point out that the property way back in the year 1895 was purchased by the ancestors of the Appellants namely Purshottam Krishna Fal Desai, in whose name the property came to be inscribed. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the document executed in the year 1919 whereby the property described under no. 7836 was purchased by said Purshottam. Learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the private document executed in the year 1964 to point out that the property which is subject matter of the suit property was partitioned between Ramchandra Fal Desai and Yeshwant Purshottam Fal Desai, who is the son of the said Purshottam Fal Desai whereby the subject property corresponding to five-sixth was allotted to said Yeshwant and one-sixth of the property was allotted to said Ramchandra. Learned Counsel thereafter pointed out that as far as the case of the Appellants, as pleaded in the plaint, the property described under nos. 6352 correspondents to the property surveyed under no. 89, 90/1 and other sub-divisions. Learned Counsel further pointed out that on perusal of the Survey Plan on record, it clearly demonstrates that the eastern boundary of the property surveyed under no. 89 stands in the name of said Ramchandra which, according to him, correspondents to one-sixth of the property allotted to him in the said private document executed in the year 1964. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as far as the land registration document in respect of the property registered under no. 6352, the eastern boundary is the property of one Bote who is in fact enjoying the property allotted towards the eastern side of the property surveyed under no. 89 and 90 in the Survey Records of Poinguinim Village. Learned Counsel further pointed out that as per the western boundary of the whole property surveyed under no. 6352, the name of the Predecessors in title of the Respondents also figured. Learned Counsel as such pointed out that the Appellants have conclusively established that the property is subject property surveyed under nos. 89 and 90 of Poinguinim Village and forms part of t