1. The defendants in O.S.11/1992 on the file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Sulthanbathery are the appellants. Suit of the respondents for declaration of title, recovery of possession and injunction was decreed by learned Sub Judge, and hence the appeal.

2. Respondents in the appeal, who are the legal heirs of plaintiff, and, impleaded in the suit as additional plaintiffs 2 to 6, have filed Cross objections to the extent aggrieved by the nongranting of mesne profits claimed,and also against some of the findings made by the learned Sub Judge.

3. Appellants are hereinafter referred to as defendants, and respondents, as plaintiffs.

4. Suit was instituted before the Munsiff Court, Mananthavady, scheduling two items in the plaint, A and B schedule, seeking recovery of A schedule, a building situate in B schedule property, from defendants 1 to 4, for a decree of injunction against them from trespassing upon plaint B schedule property excluding the building, and from committing acts of waste and taking income therefrom. Suit claims were resisted by defendants setting up a rival claim of title and possession over the entire property including the building. Plaint was later amended for declaration of title and recovery of possession of B schedule property with mesne profits alleging that pending the suit defendants trespassed upon B schedule property. By the amendment effected valuation of the suit exceeded the jurisdiction of Munsiff Court, and, upon which the plaint was returned for presentation before the proper court. Plaint returned was presented before the Sub Court, Sulthan Bathery, and, on appearance of defendants to summons issued by that court the trial proceeded. In view of contentions raised by defendants 1 to 4 some more parties were impleaded as defendants 5 to 7 in the suit. After trial the suit was dismissed, and against which plaintiff preferred an appeal as A.S.377/1995 before this court. Pending that appeal plaintiff passed away and his legal heirs were brought in as additional appellants, who are the respondents in the appeal. Setting aside the decree of dismissal case was remanded for fresh disposal, allowing the appeal. Parties were also provided opportunity to adduce further evidence, if so advised. While remitting the case pointing out some of the questions involved for consideration on the disputed facts presented in the case with direction to the trial court to enter specific findings on them, serious exception was also taken over the nonframing of an issue on adverse possession raised by the defendants resisting recovery of possession. On remission except the production of and exhibiting a document, Ext.A22, by plaintiff, no further evidence was adduced by both sides. Issue No.4 previously framed in the suit was recast to consider whether the right of plaintiffs over the plaint properties have been lost by adverse possession and limitation. The evidence tendered consisted of PW1 and PW2 and Exts.A1 to A22 for plaintiffs, and, DW1 to DW5 and Exts.B1 to B39 for defendants, C1 to C4 (commission reports and plan) and Exts.X1 to X5 summoned and produced. Appreciating the pleadings and evidence learned Sub Judge upheld the title of plaintiff over plaint properties and decreed the suit allowing recovery of possession of the properties from defendants. Injunction and claim for mesne profits applied by plaintiffs were declined. Against the decree passed in favour of plaintiffs, defendants have filed the appeal, and against the declining of mesne profits and findings entered over issue No.3 and 6 the plaintiffs have filed their Cross objections.

5. Plaint B schedule property having an extent of 2 acres 46 cents comprising A schedule building is situate in R.S.177/2 Porunnannoor Village, Karingari desom in Wynad District. Admittedly, plaint B schedule property belonged to Mechilat Maruthomkara Tharavadu. Case of the plaintiff is that Parameswaran Nambeesan, a junior member of that tarwad, obtained the above propert