1. In 1853, the karnavan of the Mootha Chettiam Veetil tarwad executed a usufructuary mortgage-deed in favour of one Kuttiassan. In 1871 the assignee of the mortgagee executed a surrender deed, Ex. 3, in favour of one Chappan, who claimed to be the karnavan of the M tarwad. It appears however that two bodies of people claimed to constitute the M tarwad and two rival karnavans (the plaintiffs and defendant 1) claimed the equity of redemption of the mortgage on behalf of those two bodies. In the suit it has been established by evidence to the satisfaction of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the present plaintiff has the rights of the mortgagor and that defendant 1, who actually purported to redeem the mortgage, had no right at all to do so. It has also been established that as long ago as 1878 the plaintiff was aware of the fact that defendant 1 was holding the land, not merely as one who had acquired rights from the original mortgagee, but as the full owner of the property. In second appeal, Wadsworth, J. agreed with the lower appellate Court that although defendant 1 had no right to redeem, his long possession over a period greater than 12 years had establ