1. The plaintiffs in OS.No.104/1998 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Pala are the appellants herein. The suit is one filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title of the first plaintiff over the plaint schedule property and possession over the same and prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the property or interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the plaintiffs with following allegations:

The plaint schedule property along with other properties was in the joint possession of the first plaintiff, defendant, their brother Sreedharan Nair and mother Madaviamma. As per Ext.A1 partition deed No.1712/1956 of Sub Registrar's Office Meenachil, they partitioned the property and eastern 19 cents of plaint schedule property was set apart to Sreedharan Nair and western 19 cents to the defendant. In 1960, Sreedharan Nair assigned his right in the property allotted to him as per Ext.A1 partition deed to their father Parameswaran Nair as per Sale Deed No.2374/1960 and he has been in possession of the property even after the said partition deed. On 12.12.1962 Parameswaran Nair executed Ext.A2 settlement deed No.3470/1962 of Sub Registrar's Office, Meenachil in respect of 19 cents of property obtained by him from Sreedharan Nair as per Sale deed No.2374/1960 in favour of the defendant. But it had not come into effect and the same has no legal sanctity and it was ab initio void. As per the said document, the defendant did not get any right. Till the death of Parameswaran Nair, their father, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He died in the year 1990. In the year 1971, their father Prameswaran Nair and the defendant together put the plaint schedule property in the possession of the first plaintiff and this arrangement was made because the first plaintiff was given only a meager share of the entire property. Thereafter the first plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property as her own property. There was a house in the plaint schedule property in which the first plaintiff was residing and later it was demolished. She had made cultivation in the property. There were rubber trees planted by her after cutting and removing the old trees in the property and these were known to the defendant and she never objected to the same. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff and they are together in joint possession of the plaint schedule property.

2. The defendant is residing in Kollam district. She used to visit plaintiffs once in two or three years. During January 1998, the first plaintiff requested the defendant to transfer her nominal right in the property to the first plaintiff, but she demanded Rs.15,000/- as consideration for which the first plaintiff was not amenable. The right if any of the defendant has been lost on account of adverse possession and limitation and so she is entitled to get declaration of her right, ownership and possession over the plaint schedule property and also for prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule property or committing any act of waste. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement contending as follows:

The suit is not maintainable. The settlement deed No.3470/1962 executed by her father Parameswaran Nair in her favour in respect of 19 cents is valid and she had accepted the settlement and she has been in possession of the property. The remaining 19 cents was allotted to her as per the partition deed and she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. As per the partition deed, right to take income from the property and right of residence in the house was reserved in favour of their mother Madhaviamma and as per the settlement deed, their father was given the right to take income during his life time and after his death by the mother till her death and they have been taking income from the property as pe