This second appeal raises some important substantial questions of law. After carefully perusing the appeal memorandum and the records and on hearing the learned counsel for the contesting parties, the substantial questions of law reframed are thus:

1. Whether a suit for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff has acquired title by adverse possession and limitation is maintainable?

2. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the courts below erred in not holding that the provisions contained in the Panchayath Act, 1960 and the Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 prevented a plea of adverse possession against a Grama Panchayath?

3. Nuisance by trespass being a continuous wrong, can a person claim adverse possession over a

4. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a decree for injunction could have been granted against the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayath, the true owner of the property in question?

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. K. G. Balasubramanian for the appellant, Sri. Sadanantha Prabhu for the 1st respondent and Sri Sheejo Chacko for the 2nd respondent.

3. 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the responden