Byers, J.

1. The only point which has been argued in this second appeal is whether the suit was barred by the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923; The plaintiffs case in, brief was that the first defendant and his father had been let into permissive possession of the two items of property in suit as far back as 1900 and 1908 and that this possession did not become adverse to the plaintiffs until subsequent to the death of the first defendants father in 1930, after which the first defendant refused to surrender possession in response to a notice issued by the first plaintiff. On the facts of the case there is now no dispute and the only point which has been discussed is whether Section 13 of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act is a bar to the suit. The appellants earned Counsel rests his case on the decision in Muthirulandi Poosari v. Sethurama Aiyar (1919)36MLJ356 while the learned Advocate-General relies on an observation in the decision in Sivaprasad Sowcar v. Narasimhamurthi AIR1940Mad187 Both these, cases arose out of the old Madras Survey and Boundaries Act of 1897 and the section of the new Act which is relied upon by the appellants earned Counsel