1. The suit properties were demised on lease by the jenmi to one Konnan (senior) who died leaving him surviving, four sons, Konnan (junior) who was the deceased husband of the 3rd plaintiff and the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, Ravunny who was the father of defendants 6 and 7, Ittaman the 4th defendant and Velayudhan the 5th defendant. Ravunny, and defendants 4 and 5 mortgaged the leasehold by Ext. A in the year 1108 to the first defendant. The jenmi gave a subsequent lease of the properties to the second defendant, the wife of the first defendant, by Ext. B in the year 1118. She sued the first defendant, Ravunny and defendants 4 and 5 in O.S. 350 of 1118 for recovery of possession. Pursuant to the decree therein, the first defendant surrendered the properties to her. The plaintiffs have now sued to redeem Ext. A. The two courts have dismissed the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. In this Second Appeal by plaintiffs 1 and 2, the sole question for decision is whether the suit is barred by limitation or not.

2. It was not contested, that the possession of the second defendant from the date of the surrender of possession to her had been adverse to the