A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.

Defendants 1 and 2 in OS No. 1526/1998 on the files of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram are in appeal. The first respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and possession over the plaint schedule property or in the alternative to allow the plaintiff to recover the plaint schedule property for injunction restraining defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing upon Plaint-A schedule property.

2. The plaintiff alleged that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the plaints schedule property. As per Sale Deed No. 16/1992 of Thiruvananthapuram Sub Registry Office, he along with his family members were residing in a hut in the area adjacent to the poramboke land for which he had applied for assignment under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules. The said poramboke land was originally in the possession of late Albert, the father of the first defendant. The said Albert handed over possession of said poramboke land which admeasures to 7 cents to the plaintiff on execution of a sale deed. Both these lands are lying as a single plot with a fencing all around. Later, the aforesaid Albert filed OS No. 1018/1980 against the plaintiff and others. However, the same was dismissed. The appeal filed against the same was also dismissed. Thereafter he filed another suit as OS No. 1018/1980 for the same reliefs and that suit also was dismissed. No appeal was preferred against the same and the decision has become final. On 28/07/1992, the first defendant and her husband late K. Walter attempted to trespass upon the suit property and the plaintiff filed OS No. 1018/1980 before the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for a decree for injunction. In the written statement filed in that suit, it was stated that as per patta No. 17511 issued by the Tahsildar under the Kerala Land Assignment Act and Rules, the land was assigned in favour of the first defendant and she got title and interest over the plaint schedule property measuring an extent of 6.5 cents and that she was residing in the building constructed therein. It was also stated that the said patta was issued in the year 1992 and that her sister Regina who is the second defendant was in possession of another 6.5 cents of land on its northern side. They claimed to have been residing in the said building for more than 10 years. They also alleged that, she has been paying tax for the entire property. The plaintiffs allege that the Government could not issue patta for the said property as it was already assigned to the plaintiff and therefore, the patta in the name of the first defendant is void. It was also alleged that notwithstanding the issuance of patta in favour of the first defendant, the plaintiff has been enjoying the property. Thereafter OS No. 1777/1992 was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh suit with appropriate reliefs. It is further alleged that though the patta issued in favour of the first defendant is void, the case casts a cloud over the plaintiff's title.

3. The appellants in the written statement denied the allegations in the plaint. According to them, the plaintiff had filed another suit as OS No. 1777/1992 against the same defendants for the very same reliefs and when the case was posted in the list, the plaintiff filed a memo stating that the suit is not pressed. Therefore, according to them, the present suit is barred by res judicata. It was contended that the sale deeds relied on by the plaintiff is a sham document as the person who executed the document had no right or possession over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff and his family members never resided in the suit property or adjacent poramboke land. The hut situated in the plaint schedule property has been constructed by the predecessor in interest of the defendants. The first defendant has been granted patta in respect of the plaint schedule property on account of her continuous possession of the said property. The first defendant is the a