Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal filed by the appellants against the judgment of the Ad-hoc District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao, in Civil Suit No. 4/2007 dated 19.11.2007, whereby the suit filed by the respondent (Forest Department/Government of Goa) was decreed. The respondent had instituted a suit for declaration, correction of survey records, and permanent injunction concerning a piece of land called 'Carakol' bearing survey no. 43/1. The respondent contended that during the survey of the property, it was not surveyed in the name of the Government, and therefore, an application was filed for correction of survey records. The appellants filed a written statement disputing the claim, asserting that there exists a property known as 'Parnagaly' or 'Podnangally' at Maulinguem in Cotigao Village, Canacona Taluka, which after liberation of Goa was surveyed under No. 43/1 admeasuring 53,400 square metres. They claimed that the property is a paddy field and was wrongly recorded as 'Carukol' instead of 'Parnagaly'. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The appellants challenged this decree in the present appeal. The High Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants failed to prove their title over the suit property. The court noted that the appellants did not produce any documentary evidence to show their ownership or possession prior to the suit. The survey records maintained by the government carry a presumption of correctness, which the appellants failed to rebut. The court also observed that the appellants did not plead or prove adverse possession. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Suit for Declaration and Injunction - Burden of Proof - The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving their title over the suit property as they did not produce any documentary evidence of ownership or possession prior to the suit. The trial court correctly held that the respondent's survey records were presumptively correct and that the appellants' claim was not substantiated. (Paras 2-5) B) Evidence Act - Presumption as to Government Records - Section 35 - Survey records maintained by the government carry a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellants did not rebut this presumption by producing any credible evidence to show that the property was wrongly recorded. (Paras 3-4) C) Limitation Act - Adverse Possession - Not Pleaded - The appellants did not plead or prove adverse possession. Their claim of possession was not supported by any documentary evidence such as revenue records or tax receipts. Hence, they cannot claim title by adverse possession. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants have established their title over the suit property and whether the trial court erred in decreeing the suit in favor of the respondent.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Title to property
- Survey records
- Presumption of correctness
- Adverse possession
