N.A. Britto, J.

This is Defendants second appeal arising from R.C.S. No. 46/1988/B.

2. Some facts are required to be stated to dispose of this second appeal and for this purpose the parties hereto shall be referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the said Civil Suit.

3. There is no dispute that the parents of the Defendants sold to the Plaintiffs the eastern part of their property known as "Mordi" or "Collem Mordi" by deed dated 18.3.1947. The said Deed. Interalia stipulated as follows:

"Que os vendedores comprometem nao impedir a passagem pelo seu predio aos compradores e aos seus descendentes." When translated it reads as follows :

"That the vendors promise not to obstruct the passage through their property to the purchasers and their descendants."

4. After the purchase, the Plaintiff No. 1 constructed a house on the southern portion and Plaintiff No. 2 constructed a house on the northern portion. In due course of time, the plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 also constructed a wall separating their respective portions in accordance with the said Deed of Sale and again in due course of time the portion in occupation of Plaintiff No. 1 came to be surveyed under No. 19/4, the portion in occupation of Plaintiff No.2 under No. 19/6 and the rest of the property of the Defendants under survey No. 19/2 and 5. The Defendants also have their residential house in the said portion surveyed under No. 19/2. The main road leading from Quepem to Amona is on the western side of the property which remained with the Defendants, without being sold.

5. The case of the Plaintiffs was that the nearest P.W.D. public road to the plaintiffs was the said Quepem-Amona road and the access to the road passed through the part of the property of the Defendants which was surveyed under No. 19/2. The Plaintiffs stated that this access was motor able having a width of 4 meters and starts from the said QupemAmona road and goes in west-east direction by the northern side of the house of the Defendants and then diverts in two parts at the rear side of the house of the Defendants one leading to the house of plaintiff No.1 and the other leading to the house of Plaintiff No.2. The Plaintiffs stated that the said access was clearly a beaten track and was existing well over 40 years i.e. since even prior to the purchase of the respective plots by the Plaintiffs and that the predecessors in title of the Defendants in the said Deed of Sale. had clearly agreed to maintain the said access for the use of the Plaintiffs and their families without creating any obstruction and that even while constructing the compound wall by the side of the road the vendors had maintained the suit access open for free use and had not even fixed any gate at the entrance. The Plaintiffs had stated that they and their families have been using the said access freely and openly since 1947 and that trucks to carry material for the construction of their respective houses were taken by the Plaintiffs by the said access and so also the materials for compound wall were also carried by truck loads by the said access. The Plaintiffs also stated that they were taking pick-ups and other vehicles to carry ash and other manure to their paddy fields etc from their residence by the suit access....etc. The Plaintiffs stated that they were using the said access as of right and they were entitled to use the same freely and the defendants were not entitled to create any obstruction or to narrow down the same. The Plaintiffs stated that in the month of March. 1988, the Defendants tried to narrow the width of the said access by fixing wooden poles near the compound wall and although the Defendants were told to remove the wooden poles on both the sides of the entrance, the Defendants did not pay any heed. Therefore, the Plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from raising or creating any obstruction on the suit access or from narrowing the width of the sa