JUDGMENT 1. It was first argued that the defendants are bound to surrender the land as they have an anubhavam only so far as thirty-five paras, of paddy are concerned and the case of Vythilingam Pilial v. Kuthira Vattath Nair 16 M.L.J. 358 was relied on. The deed in question in that case was a kanom instrument and it lay on the defendant tenant to show that after the period of 12 years the jeumi had no right to recover possession. It also appears that the tenant in that case was only entitled to an anubhavam so far as the share of the produce therein referred to was concerned. In the present case the grant Exhibit A to the defendant is recited to be renewed anubhavam grant. Prima facie, therefore, the land is granted in anubhavam. The fact that there was kanom advanced does not make it any the less an anubhavam. It was then contended that the defendants have forfeited their right as Exhibit A expressly provides that the grantee has no power of alienantion. But 12 years have elapsed since the date of the first alienation which was in 1889 and the alienation of 1897 is not alleged as a cause of action. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.