By this Second appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2001 passed by the IInd Additional District judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.53/1995 allowing the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment and decree dated 18th September, 1995 passed the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Canacona dismissing the suit filed by the respondents herein against the appellants. The respondents are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff Smt. Kantabai Onval Naik, who expired during the pendency of Second Appeal. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

2. The original plaintiff filed the above suit seeking the following reliefs :

(a) For a declaration that the suit portion under letters B-C-Q-R and delineated with pink bounds in the plan Ex. “A” to the plaint is part of the property under Lote No.51 of the property Mealdarabaga or Rajibagaeta under Land Registration No.4182, Matriz No.31, 36, 48 and 442 of Agonda Village.

(b) That by an order of this Court the defendants No.1 to 6 be directed to vacate the trespass over the suit property and remove the wooden fence erected by them in the suit property and restore the land to its original position.

(c) That by an order of this Court the land Survey Department be directed to Re-survey the holding No.118/1 and 118/8 of Agonda village in Canacona Taluka and separate therefrom the portion of the suit property i.e. the suit portion under letters B-C-Q-R and which has been fenced by the Defendants Nos. 1 to 6.

(d) For a permanent injunction of this Court restraining the defendant No.1 to 6, their agents and servants and any one claiming through them from trespassing upon or being on the suit property i.e. the Lote No.51 of the property Mealdarbaga or Rajibagaeta, situated at Agonda and more particularly identified in para 2 of the plaint, or any portion thereof or interfering therewith in any manner.

(e) For costs of the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 31.10.1988 the trial Court framed the following five issues :

(i) Whether the plaintiff proves that by sale deed dt.8.1.1974 she purchased lote no.51 Adm.7500 sq. mtrs. of the property Mealdarbaga or Rajibagaeta, situated at Agonda and described as a whole in Land Redg. Office under No.4182 and enrolled in the matriz nos. 31,36, 48 and 442 ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant no.1 and her late husband have purchased lote no.9 admeasuring about 2380 sq.mtrs. However, taking the advantage of the absence of the attorney of the plaintiff in Goa, the defendant no.1 fenced a portion of the lote no.51, the said portion is delineated with pink bounds and identified with letters B.C.Q.R. in the plan. The said property is wrongly surveyed in the survey holding no.118/1 in the name of the defendant no.1 to which the defendant no.1 has no right and title ?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff proves that part of her property of lote no.51 and lote no.52 purchased by Sundarabai Vithal Agondekar also surveyed together in the name of Sunderabai Vithal Agondekar ?

(iv) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for direction to survey authority to resurvey the holdings no.118/7, and 118/8 of Agonda village of Canacona and to separate the portion of the suit property under letters B.C.Q.R. ?

(v) What relief ? What order ?

4. Thereafter, on 26th October, 1990, the following four additional issues were framed :

(i) Whether the defendants prove that in the year 1971 Smt. Padmavati Raje, Shri Savaivir and Smt. Umadevi approached the defendant no.1 alleging that the land covered by survey no.118/1 forms part of their property Millderbaga or Rajbageta and that out of ignorance and believing that the persons of status of Smt. Padmavati Raje would not make false representations the defendant no.1 purchased the land cove