R. Bhaskaran, J.

1. This appeal was filed by defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 224/1994 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Trichur. After the filing of the appeal the 1st appellant died and his legal heirs have come on record as additional appellants 3 and 4.

2. The suit was for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule properties on the strength of title of plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 from defendants 1 and 2 with mesne profits. According to the plaintiff the plaint schedule properties were acquired by deceased Gopalan and were in his possession till his death. The third defendant is the widow of Gopalan. The plaintiff and 4th defendant are his children. The properties were being looked after by defendants 1 and 2 and Kumaran as the plaintiff was aged only one year and 4th defendant was only 4 years when Gopalan died on 17th Edavam 1125 M.E.(1950). As per the custom the 3rd defendant had gone to her house immediately after the death of Gopalan. The plaintiff and defendant 4 were getting share of profits from the properties. The plaintiff started residing in item No. 4 from 1986 onwards. Defendants 1 and 2 filed O. S. 208/86 and O. S. 445/86 before Munsiff Court, Vadakkancherry against the plaintiff and 3rd defendant and obtained an injunction. Therefore the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession on behalf of defendants 3 and 4 also.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement denying the entire averments in the plaint. The properties were purchased in the name of Gopalan for all the members of the family. When these items were sold for realisation of loan amount in auction the first defendant purchased the property. In 1962 the properties were partitioned by the members of the family and they are in separate possession of the properties since then. Gopalan died unmarried. The plaintiff or 4th defendant has no connection with deceased Gopalan. The plaintiff is not residing in item No. 4. In the additional written statement the defendants have also taken the plea of adverse possession and limitation.

4. The trial court raised the following issues.

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the suit is barred by principle of res judicata? .

3. Whether the 2nd plaintiff (it is a mistake basing the written statement of defendants 1 and 2) the third defendant is the legally wedded wife of deceased Gopalan?

4. Whether the first plaintiff (only one plaintiff) and 3rd defendant are thelegitimate children of deceased Gopalan (defendants 3 and 4 are the wife and children of Gopalan?

5. Whether the plaintiff and 3rd defendant have any absolute title over the plaint schedule properties?

6. Whether the plaintiffs have any legal possession over any portion of the plaint schedule properties?

7. Whether the plaintiffs and 3rd defendant (plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4) have any legal right to get a decree for recovery of possession?

8. Reliefs and costs?

5. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1; PW2 was an independent witness. Exts. A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Defendants examined Dw 1 to Dw3 and produced Exts. B1 to B9. After trial the trial court granted a decree as prayed for.

6. The points arising for consideration in this appeal are :

1. Whether the plaintiff is the son of deceased Gopalan?

2. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata?

3. Whether the defendants have perfected their title by adverse possession and limitation?

4. Whether decree for mesne profits at the rate decreed by the court below is sustainable or not?

Point No. 1

7. Ext. A9 is the extract of the school admission register of A. S. M. U. S. Mullurkkara relating to the plaintiff. In that his father's name is described as Kummathully Gopalan. Ext. A8 partition deed shows that the name of deceased brother of defendants 1 and 2 was Kummathully Gopalan. In Ext. A6 will executed by Kumaran, brother of Gopalan there is specific recital entitling the plaintiff to get Rs. 1,000/- from the