Madhavan Nair, J.

1. Plaintiffs, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 18 are the appellants. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs for possession of the suit property and for demolition, of a wall built by defendants 1 and 2 on the plaint site. The plaintiffs case is, that the suit property belongs to them by purchase, that they have been in effective possession of the property for a considerable number of years and that while they were in possession, on or about the 25th of February, 1924, the defendants trespassed upon it and began to construct the wall referred to in the plaint. The District Munsif found both title and possession in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree. The learned Subordinate Judge found on appeal that the plaintiffs title was proved but that they failed to prove possession within 12 years and accordingly dismissed the suit.

2. The only point argued in second appeal relates to the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the question of limitation. The land in question, is, admittedly waste land. The contesting defendants gave evidence to show that prior to 1924, for about 6 or 7 years a butcher was in possession of the land with their per