Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellants to redeem an usufructuary mortgage executed by their father in favour of one Madasami Pillai on 21st March, 1877. The respondents 1 to 5 and 7 are the heirs of Madasami Pillai and the 6th respondent is the purchaser of the property from them. Both the Courts below have dismissed theisuit on the ground firstly that the mortgagors title was extinguished by the adverse possession of Madasmi and his successors for over the statutory period, and secondly, that, in any case, the 6th respondent acquired a valid title by estoppel as against the appellants under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act as a bona fide purchaser for value. Mr. Sitarama Rao, the learned Counsel for the appellants, contests the validity of both these conclusions in this appeal.

2. The facts so far as they are material for the purpose of the appeal may be briefly stated. The mortgage deed, marked as Ex. A in the case, provided that-

Before 30th Vaigasi of Bahudanya year (11th June, 1878), I shall pay the amount and redeem the land. In case of failure to make payment on that, due date, I shall present a petition for relinqui