1. Thesubstantial questions of law raised in the second appeal are:

"1. Whether the decree and judgment of the Court below are to be set aside for non-consideration of document produced on the side of the appellant viz., Ex.B.19 etc. and non-consideration of the Commissioner's evidence and report, and plan marked in the present suit and for relying upon the Commissioner's report rendered in a different suit which do not have a binding effect on the defendant-appellant?

2. When there is a boundary dispute, whether the Courts below are right in decreeing the suit on the question of title by adverse possession between two adjacent owners?

3. Whether the judgment of the appellate Court is vitiated as it failed to do its duty of final fact finding authority after considering the evidence produced and hence it is perverse?"

2. The first defendant in O.S.No.513 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant in the second appeal. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of his title, possession and for injunction. Her case was as follows:

She was the owner of 11 cents in R.S.No.476/23, corresponding to old S.No.6466 at