1. In this case the plaintiff is the appellant before me. The suit was filed to recover certain lands which were originally service inam lands attached to office of karnam and were enfranchised by Government. The Subordinate Judge found that Item No. 1 had been held adversely by the defendants from before 1889. and as to Items Nos. 2 and 3 that the defendants were holding them adversely for at least 20 years before suit. On these findings he held that the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff files the second appeal.

2. The enfranchisement was effected by Government in 1906, the title-deed, Ex. B, being dated December 2, 1906, and the present suit was filed on June 26, 1918. If the plaintiff gets a fresh cause of action from the date of the enfranchisement by Government, there is no doubt that the plaintiffs suit is not barred. The Privy Council have now held that enfranchisement constitutes a fresh grant. If the plaintiff obtained the title in 1906, free of the prior adverse possession then his suit is not barred. The point in appeal thus reduces itself to the question whether when the Grown makes a grant at a time when the defendant was already in adverse possession for