Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This is plaintiffs appeal from the concurrent decisions of the courts below dismissing their suit for redemption on the ground that the defendants first party had acquired title by adverse possession, and, therefore, the right of redemption had been extinguished, and, as such, the plaintiffs vendors had no title left in the disputed lands to convey to the plaintiffs by the sale in their favour (2) The main question, therefore, for determination is: Has the right of redemption been extinguished. In order to appreciate and understand in what circumstances the question of adverse possession arises, and how the plaintiffs or their vendors, right of redemption has been lost, it is necessary to state some facts in brief.

2. The disputed land was the occupancy holding of defendants second party, defendants 3 to 8, and their ancestor. On 19th May, 1914, they executed a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 650.00 in respect of the disputed land in favour of Darbari Singh, the ancestor of defendants first party, defendants 1 and 2, who came in possession of the ijara land.

The defendants second party, who will hereafter be referred to as mortgagors, thereafter sold