1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 71 OF 2008 1. Smt. Jayu Babu Velip, major of age, housewife, widow of Babu Velip, 2. Shri Mohan Babu Velip, major of age, farmer, son of Babu Velip, 3. Shri Rajendra Babu Velip, major of age, Business, son of Babu Velip, 4. Shri Nilkant Babu Velip, major of age, farmer, son of Babu Velip, 5. Shri Prakash Babu Velip, major of age, farmer, son of Babu Velip, All residents of Karegal, Khola, Canacona, Goa. 6. Smt. Salu Krishna Velip, major of age, housewife, daughter of Babu Velip, and her husband. 7. Shri Krishna Ganesh Velip, major of age, farmer, Both r/o Musel, Agonda, Canacona, Goa. 2 8. Smt. Janaki Shanta Velip, major of age, housewife, daughter of Nagu Vithoba Velip, and her husband. 9. Shri Shanta Vithoba Velip, major of age, farmer, son of Vithoba Velip, Both r/o Paricoto, Matvem, Mola, Khola, Canacona, Goa. Both represented herein through their Constituted Power of Attorney Shri Mohan Velip, the Appellant No.2. ..... Appellants. V e r s u s 1. Shri Bernabe Antonio Floriano Monte Vaz Augusto Fernandes, major of age, business, son of late Juze Luis Fernandes, 2. Smt. Meera Fernandes, major of age, housewife, wife of Bernabe Fernandes, 3. Shri Santosh Britto Xaier Augusto Fernandes, major of age, son of late Juze Luis Fernandes, All r/o H.No.55, Sirvoi, Quepem Goa. ... Respondents Mr. Vledson Braganza, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the Respondents. 3 Coram :- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date :- 1 st JULY, 2009. ORAL ORDER : This is defendants' Second Appeal and is arising from Regular Civil Suit No. 14/1996. 2. Heard. The dispute between the plaintiffs and defendants was regarding the property surveyed under survey No. 48/7. It is surveyed in the name of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The plaintiffs claimed it as part of their property 'Pairachemol' etc., having Matriz number 1527. The defendants claimed it as part of their property 'Sancoagal' having Matriz Number 1523 purchased by them from Babu Mhalu Velip and others. The defendants have not produced any Sale Deed in support of their claim. The defendants also pleaded that they have sold the suit property to Nagu Vithoba Velip and others but they continued to be in possession of the same. However, the defendants did not examine the said Nagu Vithoba Velip who was impleaded as defendant no.8 in the suit. 4 3. There is no dispute that there are about 25 mundcars having their houses in the disputed portion. The defendants have admitted that they are the mundcars of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs examined two mundcars namely PW2 and PW3 who supported the claim of the plaintiffs that they were mundcars of Anacleto Luis Gonzaga Antao and presently they are the mundcars of the plaintiffs. The learned First Appellate Court has perused the Matriz documents relied upon by both the parties, and, noted that the defendants' property bearing Matriz number 1523 was a paddy field and therefore could not be property surveyed under survey No. 48/7. The First Appellate Court has also noted that the property under Matriz number 1527 which describes property 'Pariexem Mola' was a rustic palm grove and paddy field, and therefore it is more probable, that it is the property claimed by the plaintiffs. Once the defendants had accepted the position that the mundcarial houses were of the mundcars of the plaintiffs and two of them supported the claim of the plaintiffs, the defendants' claim that they are the owners in possession of the disputed suit property had to fail. That is exactly what has been done by both the Courts 5 below. The Counsel on behalf of the Appellants/Defendants submits that the names of the defendants are also shown on survey records along with that of the plaintiffs. However, that would hardly advance the case of the defendants once the plaintiffs had succeeded in proving that the disputed property was in their possession. If the defendants were in possession of the disputed property, the mundcars residing therein would not be the mundcars of the plaintiffs. It is but obvious that the defendants name was recorded erroneously in the survey records. Both the Courts below have rendered a finding that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the disputed property. 4. In view of the above, there is no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. Learned Trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs and the appeal therefrom has been dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court. 5. In view of the above, the Second Appeal is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. at*