Devadoss, J.

1. The point raised in this second appeal is that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 do not claim the property adversely to the 1st defendant and that a decree having been executed against the 1st defendant, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are not entitled to set up their own right in opposition to the plaintiffs claim. The District Munsif found that there was symbolic delivery of the property to the plaintiff. The District Judge accepted that finding and held that symbolic delivery could not bind defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and as they have been in possession all these years, the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation. It is difficult to follow the reasoning of the learned Judge. Third defendant is the widow of the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant is his son. Third defendant could not have had possession of her own during her husbands lifetime. First defendant in the previous suit contended that it was ancestral property and that he was in possession. So 3rd defendant could not have had possession independent of the 1st defendant. Second defendant was a minor at the time of the alleged delivery of possession and he could not have had any possession independently of his father who