The Second Appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court (I), South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.83/2002 thereby setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.196/90/D dated 19th March, 2002.

2. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

The suit came to be filed by the present appellant contending therein that they are the owners in possession of property known as 'Predio Mixto' or 'Mandopa' situated at Mandopa of Nevelim village, Salcete-Goa bearing Land Registration No.44875 of Book B New and enrolled under Land Revenue No.915 (hereinafter referred to as 'the suit property'). It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is bounded on South by the property of the defendants. The property of the defendants is known as 'Mandopa' and bears Land Registration No.35290 of Book B-91 New and is bounded on the East by the property of Maria Augusta Diniz and Eduarte Carneiro, on the West by the property of Caetano Gomes and on the South by the property of Duarte Carneiro, Bernanrdo Fernandes, Hermogenes Pereira and by a strip of land bearing the same name and having width of 2 metres reserved as an access beyond which lies the property of Constantino Carneiro and Minguel Antonio Fernandes. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the property of the defendants was described in the Land Registration Office as admeasuring 5,532 square metres. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the suit property of the plaintiff and the defendants has been separated from the time immemorial by a mud-ridge, which exists at the site even today. It was contended by the plaintiff that in the recent survey a portion of the suit property has been included in the property of the defendants to the extent of about 329 square metres. The portion of the suit property which according to the plaintiff has been encroached by the defendants in the survey records is shown in pink colour in the plaint map. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the two portions are triangular in shape, one portion is shown as 'A' having an area of 244.50 square metres and the other portion shown as 'B' has an area of 84.50 square metres. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said areas are lying beyond the mud-ridge which actually separates the property of the plaintiff and the defendants. It was further the case of the plaintiff that according to the own admission of the defendants an area admeasuring 500 square metres was acquired for road widening about 20 years back. It is the case of the plaintiff that they noticed the discrepancy in the survey records recently in the year 1990, and brought the same to the notice of the defendants to rectify the same. It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendants have dug inside the land of the plaintiff with a view to lay foundation for the boundary wall. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendants further threatened the plaintiff to cut the trees from the disputed property. It was the case of the plaintiff that they could not know earlier about the discrepancy in the survey records as they were out of Goa. The plaintiff thus filed a suit claiming for a declaration that the defendants have encroached upon an area of 329 square metres over the suit property as per the plaint map and for consequential reliefs.

3. The defendants resisted the suit by filing written statement. It is the case of the defendants that survey was properly done and boundary lines are properly determined by survey authorities. It is specifically denied by the defendants that no portion of the defendants property has been asphalted and/or acquired. The defendants denied the plaint map. It was the case of the defendants that the trees on the ridge were always in possession of the defendants and that they enjoyed the fr