1. The present second appeal has been directed against the concurrent findings of both the Courts below, raising the following substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Is the learned Sub-Judge right in confirming the decree when both oral and documentary evidence establish the title and possession in the eastern 0.4.25 cents is with the second defendant for over a statutory period?

(2) When the issuance of patta coupled with the production of tax receipts with reference to a particular door number and enjoyment as his own property by second defendant for over a statutory period, is the learned Sub-Judge right in negativating the plea of adverse possession?''

2. When the matter was taken up, Mr.M.Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the first respondent, filing a memo dated 17.2.2014, submitted that the first respondent had already sold the suit property, therefore, he is no longer interested in pursuing this second appeal. The said memo is recorded.

3. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/second defendant urged this Court to consider the above two substantial questions of law to interfere with the impugned judgments and decrees by contending t