1. Heard Mr. R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. S. Vahidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 and Mr. Sudesh Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No.16 and 17.

2. The above appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dated 24th April, 2007 passed in Civil Suit No.5/04(new), whereby the suit filed by the appellants for declaration and permanent injunction came to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the disputed property forms part and parcel of the property “Nacutxy” or “Ambachem Ghol” situated at Village Kudchirem of Sattari Taluka, described in the Land Registration Office under No. 4797 and surveyed in the record of rights under Survey No.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3, totally admeasuring an area of 1,74,739 sq. metres, approximately. The learned Counsel further points out that the said property came to be described in the Land Registration Office in view of a partition document executed between the ancestors of the appellants way back in the year 1890, wherein the disputed property was divided between three co-sharers. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken me through the description and inscription of the disputed property and pointed out that the boundaries of property have been correctly defined in the Land Registration Office inasmuch as the northern boundary of the property is the river which is found at the site towards the northern side of the survey number. The learned Counsel further points out that in the survey records, the names of the appellants are shown as lessees of the land and the Government as Occupant and, as such, the appellants have filed the suit for declaration of ownership of the suit property. The learned Counsel further points out that the property belonging to the appellants is shown in the cadastral survey plan under No.208, disclosing the area as 1,74,739 sq. metres. The learned Counsel further points out that it is not in dispute that the property as surveyed under No.208 corresponds to the property surveyed under No.211/1, 211/2, and 211/3 as per the record of rights promulgated under the Land Revenue Code. The learned Counsel further points out that as respondent No.1 was in the process of building an approach road to a bridge without the consent of the appellants, they were forced to file the suit for declaration of title and permanent injection. The learned Counsel further points out that the respondents have produced along with the cadastral survey plan the records which, according to him, make an endorsement to the effect that in the said property surveyed under No.208, there is an usurpation of the Government land which property otherwise stands in the names of the ancestors of the appellants. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken me through the translation as provided by the respondents and pointed out that it is a wrong translation provided by the respondents as, according to him, the translation suggests a totally erroneous position inasmuch as it states that in the usurpation there is a government land which has a totally different meaning. The learned Counsel further points out that even assuming that the land had been encroached by the ancestors of the appellants, admittedly, the respondent Government has not initiated any proceedings for eviction of the appellants and, as such, this by itself entitles the appellants to a declaration of title as claimed by them. The learned Counsel further points out that the learned Judge has erroneously taken a different angle to the dispute raised by the respondents by assuming that the property under Survey Nos. 211/1, 211/2, 211/3 belongs to the respondent Government and considering the difference in the area, an additional area of 2000 sq. metres only belongs to the appellants. The learned Counsel points out that there is no defence raised by the respondents on thi