IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 33 OF 2008 SHRI. GUIRMAJI ALIAS GOPI KHAMPRU FOL DESSAI (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Appellant Versus SHRI. RUDRAJI VISHWANATH SINAI SIRVOIKAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 10th September, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellants. The Appellants were the Defendants in R.C.S. No. 66 of 1978. The Plaintiffs had filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from interfering in the property surveyed under Nos.156/4, 156/5 and 156/6. There is no dispute that survey No.156/1 was recorded in the name of the Plaintiffs. There is also no dispute that survey No.156/Z was recorded in the name of the Defendants. According to the Plaintiffs survey No.156/1 comprised of matriz Nos. 532 and 533 while survey No.156/2 comprised of matriz Nos.529, 530 and 531. It was further the case of the Defendants that the said three matriz numbers were surveyed under Nos.156/1, 156/2, 156/4, 156/5, 156/6 and 157/7. There is no dispute that subsequently at the instance of the Plaintiffs survey No.156/1 was bifurcated into the survey Nos.156/4, 156/5, 156/6 and 156/7. Survey Nos.156/4 and 156/5 was recorded in the name of the son of Plaintiff No.2, survey No.156/6 was recorded in the name of Plaintiff No.1 and one Mhableshwar Vishwanath Shirvoikar and Narayan Vishwanath Shirvoikar. Survey No.156/7 was recorded in the name of one Mono Ganesh Gauncar, and which admittedly is not the subject matter of the suit. This happened in the year 1973 or thereabout and the survey records remained in the name of the Plaintiffs and others as indicated herein above till the filing of the suit in the year 1978. It was the contention of the Defendants that the said re-survey was done without notice to the Defendants. It was further the case of the Defendants that the Defendants were in possession of sub-divisions 4, 5 and 6 of survey No.156 as part of matriz Nos.529, 530 and 531. There is no dispute that all the matriz numbers at one stage belonged to the Communidade and the Defendants came to acquire the said property through one Vishwanath Shirvoikar. Admittedly survey No.156/1 always stood recorded in the name of the Plaintiffs and they had a presumption in their favour that they were in possession. Further sub-divisions were done of Survey No.156/1 only and therefore there was no question of the Defendants being given a notice. The learned first appellate Court has assessed the evidence produced and has come to the conclusion that the Appellants/Defendants have failed to prove that they were in possession of any land beyond survey No.156/2. That, in my view, is a finding of fact given by the first appellate Court on the evidence produced by the parties. It is not the case of the Defendants that any time survey No.156/1 or for that matter survey Nos.156/4 and 5 were recorded in his name. Consequently, I find that there is no merit in this Second Appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.