S.A.No.313 of 2008 has been filed against the judgment of the first appellate court, reversing the findings of the trial court in O.S.No.199 of 1999. Similarly, S.A.No.314 of 2008 has been filed against the judgment of the first appellate court, reversing the findings of the trial court in O.S.No.598 of 1998.

2. The brief facts leading to file a suit in O.S.No.598 of 1998 are as follows. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant. Item No.1 of the suit property was settled in favour of the defendant on 19.12.1973 by the father of the parties. The defendant was given in marriage in some other place, which is 70 kilometers away from the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff was enjoying the suit property and he is in possession of the suit property. The 2nd item of the suit property in O.S.No.598 of 1998 was purchased by the defendant in the year 1981. Though the first and second item of the suit properties are stand in the name of the defendant, she never in possession of the suit properties. The plaintiff was cultivating the suit property and also obtained patta in his name and patta pass book under the Tamil Nadu Pass Book Act, Adangal and other revenue records are also stand in the name of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has perfected to his title by way of adverse possession and hence, he prayed for declaration of his title and right over the suit property and also permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The defendant in O.S.No.598 of 1998, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.199 of 1999, denied the contention of the plaintiff. Her contention is that the suit property was in her possession and that the plaintiff has obtained patta in unlawful manner and hence, the same will not bind her. According to the defendant, the other revenue records are also fabricated one and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4. The defendant in O.S.No.598 of 1998 has filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 1999 for cancellation of patta issued in the name of her brother, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.598 of 1998. It is the contention of defendant in O.S.No.199 of 1999 that he is in continuous possession of the suit property for more than 12 years and that the patta has also been issued after due enquiry and hence there is no cause of action to file the above suit.

5. The trial court after framing necessary issues and after analysing the evidence on record, partly decreed the suit in O.S.No.598 of 1998 with regard to the Item No.1 of the suit property and dismissed with regard to the item No.2 of the suit property and also dismissed the suit in O.S.No.199 of 1999 on 22.12.2006 by way of common judgment. Aggrieved over the said decree and judgment of the trial court, the defendant (Jayakumari) filed appeals in A.S.No.37/2007 and A.S.No.38/2007. The first appellate court allowed the said appeals and reversed the decree and judgment of the trial court. Against which, the present second appeals have been filed by the plaintiff (Manickam).

6. While admitting the second appeal in S.A.313 of 2008, the following substantial questions of law were framed.

1. Whether the suit is barred under Section 14 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act.

2. Whether the entry in the patta pass book under Ex.A56 issued under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu patta Pass Book Act is the prima facie evidence of title in favour of the 4th defendant?

7. Similarly, in S.A.No.314 of 2008, the following substantial questions of law were framed.

1. Whether the defendant is entitled to mark xerox copy of the settlement deed as Ex.B1, without any pleadings and ground for marking secondary evidence as prescribed under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act.

2. Whether the entry in the patta pass book under Ex.A56 issued under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act is prima-facie evidence of title in favour of the plaintiff.

8. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to