T.P. Joseph, J.

Following substantial question of law is framed for a decision: When plaint schedule property is exactly the same as is described in Ext.A3, certificate of purchase to which the defendant was admittedly a party and which has become final and then parties virtually admitted before trial court that plaint schedule property is properly identified by the Commissioner, was the lower appellate court justified in reversing the decree of trial court holding that property is not properly identified? -

2. Second Appeal arises from judgment and decree of learned Additional Sub Judge, Thalassery in A.S. No.2 of 2002 reversing judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Thalassery in O.S. No.79 of 1997 and non-suiting appellant/plaintiff. He claimed to be a tenant of the suit property - 10 cents in R.S. No.2/5 of Ancharakkandy Village. According to the appellant the said property belonged to the late Kunnummal Govindan, father of respondent/defendant from whom he obtained a lease of a portion of the said property for agricultural purposes on 15.04.1950 for a period of 12 years on agreement to pay rent of Rs. 2/- per year. It is the further case of appellant that he has b