1. Heard Shri. V. B. Nadkarni, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the Appellants and Shri. G. Shirodkar, learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Respondent.

2. This appeal is directed against Judgment dated 25-7-2007 of the learned District Judge, Panaji, by which the suit filed by the Appellants for declaration and a consequential relief has been dismissed.

3. The parties hereto shall herein after be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.

4. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, was that there was a large property known as "VITES" having land registration No.5386 and cadastral survey No.1046 prepared by the Government in the year 1904 to 1905 which was bounded on the north by the property of the Government, and which originally belonged to Joaquim Thomas Xavier de Rego and others, and was hilly land. According to the plaintiffs, Domingos Caetano de Souza, father of plaintiff No.1 had purchased the said entire property from the Rego family more than 70 years back and had paid the entire price due to them but the sale deed remained without being executed but the said Domingos Caetano de Souza had taken exclusive possession of the same, over 70 years back, and he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same for over 70 years publicly and as a matter of right as owner thereof and had planted cashew trees, mango trees, cocum (brindao) trees and appropriated its produce without any disturbance whatsoever and the said property was enclosed by boundary wall which was several decades old. According to the plaintiffs, the said Domingos Caetano de Souza was the father of plaintiff No.1 and of late Manuel Antonio Teotonio Francisco Perpetua Sucorro de Souza @ Manuel D'Sozua and the said Manuel Antonio Teotonio Francisco Perpetua Sucorro de Souza expired on 14-10-1996 leaving behind plaintiff No.2 as his widow and plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 as the sole and universal heirs.

5. The plaintiffs further claimed that after the death of Domingos Caetano D'Souza, plaintiff No.1 who lived in the immediate neighbourhood of the suit land took care of the property and planted a great number of trees thereon such as cashew trees, mango trees, cocum trees and enjoyed the fruits of the same as well as of the trees earlier planted by the father, as aforesaid, continuously, over the years and plaintiff No. 1 also cut down a number of trees and appropriated its produce. On the cadastral survey plan, the names of the owners of the said land in actual possession are indicated and the suit land is separated from other lands by boundary walls which earlier the father of plaintiff No.1 and after his death plaintiff No. 1 has carefully kept and maintained over the years but in the recent survey conducted by the Government a sizable portion of the said property of plaintiff No.1 has wrongly been shown as Government land and the said portion has been shown as part of Chalta No.4-B which lies entirely within the boundaries of the property bearing registration No.5386 which belonged to the Rego family, and with which the Government had nothing to do. The plaintiffs claimed that the plaintiffs were in possession of the said land without disturbance from anyone whatsoever, peacefully, publicly and continuously as of right for the last over 30 years and prior to that, the father of plaintiff No.1 held the same as his own. The plaintiffs claimed that1he portion of Chalta No.4-B in possession of the plaintiffs was marked in red on the plan annexed to the plaint and it admeasured about 6100 sq. meters, and the rest area of Chalta No.4-B admeasured 20,000 sq. meters which does not belong to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed that the road was widened and the land acquisition proceedings were instituted and a strip of land from Chalta No.19A and a strip from Chalta No.4-B was acquired for the purpose of road widening, and the compensation was paid to plaintiff No.1 both in respect of the strip to the west of Cha