ORDER
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. This appeal arises form the judgement dated 6-7-1994 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No.104/1989, whereby the said appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the judgement of the trial Court passed on 13-1-89 in Special Suit No.122/81.
2. The case of the appellant is that they are the owners in possession of a plot of land in Survey No.121/0 and the old cadastral Survey No. 209 and situated in the village of Cortali of Sanguem Taluka and which has been registered in the Land Registration Office under No. 26737 and in Taluka Revenue Office under Matriz No. 542. The said property is bounded on all four sides by property ‘Patem’ belonging to the Sanguem Municipality. The appellant claims that the suit property is in their open, peaceful and public possession and enjoyment for the last more that 50 years. It is their case that there was a cemetry located in the suit property which was demolished
50 years ago and a new cemetry was built at some other place. It is their further contention that the suit property is a barren land. Since the respondent No.2 herein was planning to construct a building on the suit property and for that purpose had engaged contractor and labourers to dig pits in the suit land without the consent of the appellant, the appellant filed the present suit initially for permanent injunction simpliciter and thereafter amended the plaint to include the prayer relating to acquisition of ownership rights to the suit property by virtue of adverse possession.
3. The case of the respondent is that the suit property is part and parcel of a bigger property by name ‘Patem’ belonging to the Municipality of Sanguem and bears Survey No.121, The respondents denied the claim of the appellant regarding ownership and possession. It is further stated by the respondents that merely because there existed a cemetry in the plot, that did not create any right of ownership in favour of the appellant and that the Government has proposed to erect a building in the suit plot to be used as staff quarters for Primary Health Centre at Sanguem.
4. The trial Court alter going through the evidence on record arrived at a finding that the appellant had failed to establish its case regarding the ownership as well as possession and therefore dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 13.1.1989. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred First Appeal No. 104/89 which came to be disposed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 6.7.1994.
5. While assailing the impugned judgment, Shri Z.D’ Souza, learned Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the documentary evidence on record clearly establish the ownership rights as well as the possessory rights of the appellant in relation to the suit property and that there is no evidence whatsoever produced by the respondents to justify their claim of right to the suit property. He further submitted that the appellant has better title as compared to that of the respondents and this is established from the matriz records as well as from the deed of justification of possession dated 17-9-1966. He also submitted that the old cadastral records support the claim of the appellant and there was no challenge thrown to the deed of justification by the Municipality within the prescribed period as required under the law and therefore on the strength of the said documents the appellants have proved their ownership rights as well as possession of the suit property with them and hence according to the learned advocate, the learned Single Judge erred in confirming the judgment of the trial Court and dismissing the appeal.
6. On the other hand, Shri G.U. Bhobe, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that the appellant has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal more particularly in view of the fact that there are concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as those by the learned Single Judge on the point of ownership as well as possession of the suit property. He further submitted that the trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have elaborately discussed the evidence on record and after analysing the materials on record have arrived at a clear finding that the appellant has failed to prove their claim of ownership as well as of possession in respect of the suit property and therefore no interference is called for.
7. On hearing the advocates of the parties and on perusing the records, it is seen that the suit was originally filed for permanent injunction simpliciter on the ground that the suit property was in open, peaceful and public possession and enjoyment of the appellant for more than 50 years and thereafter consequent to the defence raised by the respondents the relief of ownership was also sought to be claimed by amending the plaint. The trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge after analysing the
evidence on record arrived at the finding that the appellant has neither been able to prove the title of the suit properly nor have they been able to establish the possession of the suit property with the appellants. These findings were arrived at after analysing the documentary as well as oral evidence placed on record by the appellants. The Trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have discussed elaborately as to why the documentary evidence does not support the claim of the appellants as regards the ownership of the suit property. The trial Court has rightly held that the deed of justification of possession is a mere declaration, which does not bestow any title of the suit property upon the appellants and the only value of such type of deeds is to enable a person in whose favour the declaration is made to get the land registered in his name in the Land Registration Office. Indeed, such deeds of justification of possession help the concerned parties only to get the land registered in their favour and do not in any way establish any prescriptive title to the properties referred to in such deeds and for which purpose the concerned parties have to establish the possession in respect of the concerned property independently. The records in respect of this case do not disclose that the appellants were successful in establishing possession of the suit property for more than 50 years i.e. from the time the cemetary in the suit property was shifted to some other place. Admittedly, the suit property is a barren land. No evidence has been led by the appellants to justify any act of possession in the suit property during the period of 50 years from the time the cemetry was shifted to some other place.
8. The Trial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have elaborately dealt with the documentary evidence which relates to the survey and matriz records and have found that the appellants have not been able to produce any document to show that the old survey was promulgated after hearing the objections from the interested parties. Besides, the matriz records were prepared a day earlier to the execution of deed of justification of possession in the year 1966. It is also seen from the records that the entry in relation to matriz registration was found in added sheet pasted to the book of registration which were sufficient enough to create doubts about genuineness of such registration. The findings of the trial Court have been duly confirmed by the learned Single Judge after analysing the material on record in detail.
9. We find no infirmity in the finding of the learned Single Judge that from the materials on record the only conclusion which can be derived is that the appellants have tailed to establish their ownership rights as well as possession of the suit property based on the materials on record and the documentary evidence produced on record by the appellants do not establish in any manner their rights in or to the suit property. On the contrary, the materials on record justify the finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellants were permitted to use the suit property as cemetry by the Municipality and the same was a mere licence which is deemed to have been terminated consequent to the shifting of the cemetry at some other place. The undisputed fact that the suit property is a barren land and the failure on the part of the appellants to prove any possessory act in the suit property during the period of 50 years prior to the filing of the suit conclusively establishes that the appellants have miserably failed to establish any of their claims to the suit property.
10. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any justification for interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and hence the appeal fails and is accordingly hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
11. Appeal dismissed.