JUDGMENT 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. 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 this count, nor any foundation laid by the respondents. The learned Counsel points out that the property has different types of plantation such as paddy field, arecanut garden, caju grove, coconut trees, etc., which clearly disclose that such a property is a private property. The learned Counsel points out that there is no defence raised by the respondents on this count, nor any foundation laid by the respondents. The learned Counsel points out that the property has different types of plantation such as paddy field, arecanut garden, caju grove, coconut trees, etc., which clearly disclose that such a property is a private property. The learned Counsel further points out that the respondents have not brought in any evidence to show that they were ever in possession of the property or that they have enjoyed the said property through any other person on their behalf. The learned Counsel further points out that in any event, DW.1 has clearly admitted that the Government is not in possession of any portion of the property. The learned Counsel has, thereafter, taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously held that the presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code, arises in favour of the respondent Government, when such presumption, if any, stood rebutted in view of the admission by DW.1 that the Government was never in possession of the property. The learned Counsel further points out that once the property is registered in the Land Registration Office in the name of the ancestors of the appellants, the presumption under Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code is to be drawn that the property belongs to the appellants. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge did not consider the evidence led by the appellants, besides the oral evidence led by the parties to erroneously dismiss the suit filed by the appellants. The learned Counsel further points out that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation when it is now well settled that a suit for declaration of title cannot be barred by limitation, unless the title of the property stands extinguished by prescription/adverse possession. The learned Counsel further points out that the filing of the suit for declaration is a continuous cause of action which a party can file as long as the title subsists. The learned Counsel further points out that the filing of the suit for declaration is a continuous cause of action which a party can file as long as the title subsists. The learned Counsel further points out that as there is no dispute that the appellants are in possession of the property and that the title clearly flows in favour of the appellants, the learned Judge was not justified in passing the impugned judgment which deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.16 and 17 has adopted the submissions advanced by Shri Ramani, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants. The learned Counsel further points out that considering the material on record, the learned Judge was totally wrong in dismissing the suit when there was overwhelming evidence produced by the appellants, not only documentary, but also oral evidence to establish that the appellants and respondents No.16 and 17 have ownership and also possession over the disputed property. 5. Mr. Vehidulla, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 5 has supported the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel has pointed out that the respondents are in possession of the disputed property and according to him, the records reveal that a part of the property belongs to the Government. The learned Counsel further points out that DW.1 in his deposition has clearly stated that the respondents Government is in possession of the property and as the appellants have failed to establish that the property bearing Survey Nos.211/1, 211/2, and 211/3 forms part and parcel of the property described in the Land Registration Office, the learned trial Judge was justified to dismissed the suit filed by the appellants. The learned Govt. Advocate further points out that the duly promulgated survey records stand in the name of the Government which further establishes that the property belongs to the respondents/Government. The learned Counsel further points out that the respondents have clearly established that the disputed property is a forest land which belongs to the respondents/Government. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the evidence on record, as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned trial Judge has rightly drawn the presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code to come to the conclusion that the respondents Government have ownership and possession of the disputed property. The learned Counsel has thereafter taken me through the evidence on record, as well as the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned trial Judge has rightly drawn the presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code to come to the conclusion that the respondents Government have ownership and possession of the disputed property. The learned Counsel as such points out that the appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, the following points for determination arise in the present appeal: (1) Whether the learned trial Judge was justified to come to the conclusion that the disputed property under Survey Nos. 211/1, 211/2 and 211/3 does not belong to the appellants? (2) Whether the learned trial Judge was justified to come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation? 7. With regard to the first point for determination, the records reveal that the appellants, in support of their claim of title and ownership over the suit property, have produced the land registration document. On perusal of the land registration record, I find that the property which has been described therein at No.4794 at page 25 of book B 13 (New) stands in the name of the ancestors of the appellants. The property as described therein clearly shows that towards the northern side is the river; whereas towards the east and west there are running down waters. 8. The cadastral survey plan produced on record discloses that there is a property which is surveyed under No.208. The property disclosed in the said cadastral survey plan surveyed under No.208, has an area of 1,74,739 sq. metres. The said area clearly matches with the area claimed by the appellants. A perusal of the survey records in respect of the property bearing Survey No.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3, reveal that the said property admeasures roughly an area of 1,71,800/- sq. metres. On going through the evidence of PW.1, I find that the fact that the property as shown in the cadastral survey plan under No.208 corresponds to the new survey records under No.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3, has not been disputed. The cadastral survey record clearly shows that the same stands in the name of the ancestors of the appellants. metres. On going through the evidence of PW.1, I find that the fact that the property as shown in the cadastral survey plan under No.208 corresponds to the new survey records under No.211/1, 211/2 and 211/3, has not been disputed. The cadastral survey record clearly shows that the same stands in the name of the ancestors of the appellants. No doubt there is an endorsement in the said cadastral survey to the effect, inter alia, that in the said survey number there is an usurpation of the land of the Government which has to be separated in accordance with law though, prima facie, the translation supplied by the respondents does not appear to be an accurate translation. There is nothing in the document which suggests that the said property is an usurpation wherein the Government land is located as stated in the translation. This impression stated in the translation does not prima facie appear to be correct considering the original document produced on record. The records also do not reveal that the respondent/Government has taken any steps for eviction of the appellants or for restoration of the possession of any portion of the property which was originally surveyed in the cadastral survey No.208. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the learned trial Judge to consider on the basis of the land registration document whether the property belonged to the appellants or not. The presumption under Article 953 of the Portuguese Civil Code is as such available in favour of the appellants and other co-owners. Once such presumption is drawn, the learned Judge was not justified to come to the conclusion that such presumption can be rebutted by the revenue document. 9. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Judge, I find that the learned Judge has been swayed with the fact that the property stands recorded in the Record of Rights in the name of the Government in the occupant's column. It is now well settled that entries in the survey records do not confer any title in favour of the person whose name figures therein. In any event, the presumption of possession under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code stands rebutted in view of the categorical admission of DW.1 that the Government is not in possession of the said property. In any event, the presumption of possession under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code stands rebutted in view of the categorical admission of DW.1 that the Government is not in possession of the said property. The learned Judge has lost sight of this fact while passing the impugned judgment to draw a presumption under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code in favour of the Government/respondent. Once the said respondents themselves have admitted that they were not in possession of the property, it was expected of the learned Judge to examine the record and ascertain whether the appellants have established that the property as described in the Land Registration Office corresponds to the disputed property claimed by the appellants. The learned Judge has failed to examine the record in the manner as required in law and consequently, in the interest of justice it would be appropriate to quash and set aside the judgment of the learned Judge and remand the matter to the trial Court to decide the suit afresh, in accordance with law. The first point for determination is answered accordingly. 10. With regard to the second point for determination, the learned Counsel Shri Ramani appearing for the appellants is justified to contend that the suit is not barred by law of limitation. Merely because a name of a particular person figures in the survey records, by itself does not give any cause of action to a party to file a suit for declaration of title. This Court, in a Judgment dated 17th January, 2014 in Second Appeal No. 82/2007, on relying upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2010) 2 S.C.C. 194 in the case of Daya Singh & anr. vs. Gurudev Singh (Dead) by LRs & Ors., has observed at para 5 thus: “5. … In the present case, unless and until the Respondents establish that they have become owners by adverse possession, the findings of the learned Judge that the suit is barred by limitation is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 2 S.C.C. 194 ) in the case of Daya Singh & anr. vs. Gurudev Singh (Dead) by LRs & Ors., has observed at para 18 has stated thus: 18. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2010) 2 S.C.C. 194 ) in the case of Daya Singh & anr. vs. Gurudev Singh (Dead) by LRs & Ors., has observed at para 18 has stated thus: 18. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to agree with the findings of the high Court that the suit was barred by time because of its filing after 18 years of entering into the compromise. The question of filing the suit before the right accrued to them by compromise could not arise until and unless infringement of that right was noticed by one of the parties. The High Court in the impugned Judgment, in our view, had fallen in grave error in holding that the suit was barred by time and had ignored to appreciate that the rights of the appellants to have the revenue record accrued first arose in 1990 when the appellants came to know about the wrong entry and the respondents failed to join the appellants in getting it corrected. In our view, the High Court was not justified in holding that mere existence of a wrong entry in the revenue records does not, in law, give rise to a cause of action within the meaning of Article 58 of the Act. No other point was urged before us by the learned counsel for the parties.” Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court, merely entering the name in the Survey Records by itself would not give a cause of action to the Appellant/Plaintiff to file a suit for declaration unless his right to enjoy the property has been infringed or at least there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right of the Appellant/Plaintiff in the suit property. As such, the Lower Appellate Court, was not justified to come to the conclusion that the suit for declaration was barred by limitation taking note of the cause of action as pleaded in the plaint. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly.” 10. Considering the said observations, I find that the finding of the learned Judge that the suit for declaration of title in the present case is barred by law of limitation cannot be sustained. The first substantial question of law is answered accordingly.” 10. Considering the said observations, I find that the finding of the learned Judge that the suit for declaration of title in the present case is barred by law of limitation cannot be sustained. It is the case of the appellants that the respondents started constructing a road through their property without complying with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act which, when they learnt about the erroneous entry in the survey records, forced the the appellants to file the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Hence, it cannot be said that the cause of action which forced the appellants to file the suit is barred by law of limitation. The findings in the impugned judgment given by the learned trial Judge, on that count, as such, deserve to be quashed and set aside. The second point for determination is answered accordingly. 11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the nature of the dispute in the present case, the learned Judge would have to decide the issues No.1 and 4 afresh, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law. The parties are also at liberty to supply a true translation of the cadastral plan referred to hereinabove. 12. In view of the above, I pass the following order: (I) The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 24th April, 2007 is quashed and set aside. Civil Suit No.5/04(new) is restored to the file of the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji. (II) The learned District Judge is directed to decide the said civil suit afresh, in the light of the observations made hereinabove in accordance with law with regard to issue Nos. 1 and 4 referred to hereinabove, as expeditiously, as possible. (III) All contentions of the parties, on merits in that regard, are kept open. (IV) The parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge, North Goa, Panaji on 16th June, 2014 at 10.00 a.m.