P.R. Shivakumar, J.

1. S.A. No.798 of 2006 has been preferred against the decree of the lower appellate Court made in A.S. No.54 of 2005. S.A. No.799 of 2006 has been preferred against the decree of the lower appellate Court made in A.S. No.46 of 2005.

2. Subramanian, the respondent in both the second appeals filed O.S. No.95 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vanur against Amsa, the appellant in both the appeals, claiming a damages of Rs. 15,000/- and costs. The appellant in both the second appeals filed O.S. No.58 of 1997 against the respondent herein for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. Both the suits were tried together along with yet another suit O.S. No.50 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein against the respondent herein claiming a sum of Rs. 2000/- as damages.

3. The learned trial Judge, namely the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vanur decreed the suit O.S. No.58 of 1997 and dismissed the suits O.S. No.95 of 1997 and O.S. No.50 of 1998 without costs. As against the dismissal of O.S. No.50 of 1998 filed by the appellant herein, no appeal was filed by the appellant herein. As against the decree passed in O.S. No. 58 of 1997, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 46 of 2005 and as against the decree dismissing O.S. No.95 of 1997, the respondent herein preferred an appeal in A.S. No.54 of 2005, both on the file of the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

4. The learned lower appellate Judge (the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam), by a common judgment, allowed both the appeals, set aside the decrees passed by the trial Court in O.S. No.58 of 1997 and O.S. No.95 of 1997, dismissed the suit O.S. No.58 of 1997 and decreed the suit O.S. No.95 of 1997. As against the said decrees passed in A.S. No.46 of 2005 and 54 of 2005, the present second appeals, namely S.A. No.799 of 2006 and S.A. No.798 of 2006 respectively have been filed.

5. Both the second appeals were admitted on 26.09.1996 and, in both the second appeals, the following common substantial questions of Law were formulated:

"1. Whether the lower appellate Court has erred in law in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property by adverse possession, when he claimed his title over the suit property on the basis of Ex. B3 and B4 sale deeds?

2. Whether in law the judgment and decrees passed by the lower appellate Court are sustainable, when it has failed to consider and appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective and based its conclusion on mere surmises and conjectures and upon no evidence and in short a perverse finding?"

6. The arguments advanced by Mr. P. Mani, learned counsel for the appellant and by Mr. A.K. Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the respondent were heard. The judgments of the courts below and the other materials available on record were also perused.

7. Since the parties are same in both the second appeals and the trial Court in the common judgment referred to the appellant herein as plaintiff and the respondent herein as defendant, it shall be convenient to a adopt the same method of referring to the parties in this judgment; unless and otherwise specifically mentioned, the term "plaintiff" shall refer to the appellant Amsa/plaintiff in O.S. No.58 of 1997 and the term "defendant" shall refer to Subramanian, the respondent in the second appeals/defendant in O.S. No.58 of 1997.

8. The plaintiff Amsa filed the suit O.S. No.58 of 1997 against the respondent contending that she purchased the suit property from Murugesan S/o. Senkazhni and his son Ravikumar under a registered sale deed dated 04.04.1997 for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/- and was in possession of the same thereafter; that Murugesan and Ravikumar had got the property in a partition and when she took possession of the suit land along with Eucalyptus trees, she cut the same and stored in the suit property; that the defendant with the help of ruling party people and using the infl