P.K. Musahary, J.

1. Hearing and disposal of this Appeal earlier without formulating any substantial question of law was faulted seriously for, it amounted to assumption of jurisdiction by this Court under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Granting a leave and setting aside the judgment and order dated 6.8.2004, the hon'ble Apex Court remitted back the case for disposal afresh in accordance with law providing a liberty to this Court to frame the substantial question of law. On perusal of record, it is found that this Court, in fact, at the time of admission of the Appeal, formulated the following substantial question of law on 24.9.1997:

(i) Whether the First Appellate court acted illegally in holding that the respondent claimed adverse possession by filing written objection to the counter claim notwithstanding admission of execution and registration of sale deed in respect of the land by the original pattadars in favour of the deceased defendant?

After remand, this Court reformulated the substantial question of law as follows:

Whether the plaintiff's claim of right of adverse possession can be sustained and his long continuous and uninterrupted possession becomes h