(1.) This Second Appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment.
(2.) The respondent of this Second Appeal was the sole plaintiff before the Trial Court in the suit vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 and she was the appellant before the First Appellate Court in the First Appeal vide T.A. No.37 of 1999.
(3.) The suit of the plaintiff before the Trial Court vide T.S. No.13 of 1992 was a suit for declaration and recovery of possession.