1. The defendant, who suffered a decree in O.S. 71 of 1985 before the Munsiff's court, Mannarghat and whose appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court is the appellant. The parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged in jenm to one Mannarghat Moopilsthanam and one Chellan obtained it on oral lease. He sold the property to the plaintiff's mother Masammal as per registered deed No.2550/61. Masammal constructed a shop building in the property. She assigned rest of the property except 6 cents of the property wherein the shop building situate. According to the plaintiff, Masammal had given the building on rent to the defendant. Since the defendant defaulted in payment of rent, O.S. 112 of 1975 was instituted for arrears of rent. Even though the trial court decreed the suit, the first appellate court and the second appellate court were of the view that the tenancy arrangement had not been proved, and therefore the trial court decree was reversed. Thereafter Masammal sold the property to the plaintiff as per deed No.312/85 of SRO Mannarghat. It is contended that the defendant has no title to the suit property and he is only a tenant. Since his earlier suit had been dismissed on the ground that the tenancy arrangement has not been proved, the plaintiff is constrained to bring a suit on title.

3. The defendant resisted the suit. In both the written statement as well as in the additional written statement the title of the plaintiff was disputed. It is contended that the property had never been in the possession of Chellan and consequently Masammal also. Masammal had no right over the suit property. Since the judgment and decree in O.S. 112 of 1975 against the plaintiff has become final, he is not entitled to any relief. It was also contended that the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata and estoppel. The defendant contended that he had obtained the property in 1961 on an oral tenancy from Moopilsthanam. According to him, he constructed a building and began to reside there from 1975. The defendant has been keeping possession of the property as his own and even if the plaintiff had any title to the suit property, it had been lost by adverse possession and limitation. On the basis of these contentions, it is prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. The trial court raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of P.W.1 and the documents marked as Exts. A1 to A24 from the side of the plaintiff. Defendant examined D.W.1 and had Exts. B1 to B23 marked. Exts. C1, C2, C3 and C4 are the commission reports and plans. On an appreciation of the evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had title to the suit property and that the defendant had only the status of a tenant under him. Accordingly the suit was decreed. The matter was carried in appeal as A.S. 79 of 1989 before Sub Court, Ottappalam. The first appellate court on an independent evaluation of the evidence concurred with the trial court and dismissed the appeal and hence this Second Appeal.

5. The following substantial questions of law are seen raised for consideration in this Second Appeal:

"(A) Should not the rival claims of tenancy set up by the parties and arising in the suit be referred to the Land Tribunal under Section 125(3) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act?

(B) Is not the present suit barred by res judicata in view of the decision in the suit which culminated in Ext. A2 Second Appeal?) Are not the contentions raised by the plaintiff barred by estoppel in view of the plea taken by his predecessor in interest in the previous suit filed by her against the defendant?

(D) Does the pendency of the suit for eviction of the building filed by the assignor of the plaintiff against the defendant arrest the running of the period of limitation for adverse possession in respect of the land?

(E) Is