Innes and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.
1. The question as regards the lands 1, 2, and 4 is one of identification, and the Judge does not consider that they are identified by the evidence of plaintiffs as lands in the possession of Kunholen whose rights the defendants purchased.
2. As regards land No. 3, the respondents put in a memorandum of objections but their objection relates to the finding of the Judge upon the evidence that the plaintiffs have identified this piece of land with one of those held by Kunholen. It was suggested also for the respondents that plaintiffs' claim to No. 3 is barred by limitation, and though it was not open to the respondents to take this objection of themselves, the Court is bound to consider it. It is contended by Mr. Rama Rau that the kanam demise is a lease, and that, as rent has been continuously paid, the relation of landlord and tenant has continued and the suit is not barred. But the Full Bench decision in N. V. Silapani v. V.M. Ashta Murti Nambudri I.L.R. 3 Mad. 382 decides that a kanam is ordinarily, and in the absence of special circumstances, to be treated as it has always hitherto been treated---as a mortgage. There is nothing special in the demise in this case. It was executed in 1817, and as a mortgage is barred unless there has been intermediately any such acknowledgment as required by Section 19 of the Limitation Act to give a fresh starting point.
3. We cannot agree with the District Judge that a sale certificate satisfies the conditions required by Section 19 of the Limitation Act.
4. We must hold that plaintiffs' suit was barred and was, therefore, barred as to No. 3.
5. To this extent we modify the decree of the District Judge with costs, payable by appellants to respondents.
6. The appeal of plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.