Judgment The appellant in this second appeal was the plaintiff in a suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage Exhibit A-4 of the year 1917. His case was that the mortgaged property belonged to one Mayandi Thevar who had mortgaged it usufructuarily in favour of one Chinna Thevar for Rs. 125 in 1917 and he was the purchaser of the equity of redemption. This Chinna Thevar is the deceased husband of the 1st defendant in the suit. In 1927, the mortgagee Chinna Thevar executed a sub-othi Exhibit A-5 of the suit property in favour of his younger brother the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant in the suit is a still younger brother of the mortgagee under Exhibit A-4. The main contest was raised by the 3rd defendant who contended that he was the owner of the property in dispute having acquired it in an oral partition in his family and also by adverse possession. The truth and genuineness of the mortgages Exhibits A-4 and A-5 were also put in issue. The trial Court found that Exhibits A-4 and A-5 were true and genuine but on the question of paramount title pleaded by the 3rd defendant it found against him because it specifically held that neither the oral partition nor the adverse possession pleaded by him was made out. But unfortunately the trial Court dismissed the suit without giving a decree for redemption at least against defendants 1 and 2 when it had held that the mortgages Exhibits A-4 and A-5 were true and genuine. In the lower appellate Court the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with the finding of the trial Court as regards the truth and genuineness of Exhibits A-4 and A 5 but he differed from the trial Court on the question of adverse possession. According to the learned Subordinate Judge, the 3rd defendant had prescribed title by adverse possession and for this conclusion he relied upon the fact that plaintiff had not proved possession of the mortgagee within 12 years before suit. The Full Bench decision in Official Receiver, East Godavari v. Govinda Raju1, lays down that in a suit for ejectment the plaintiff must establish possession within 12 years before suit to show that he has a subsisting title. That decision has no relevance whatsoever to the question which arose to be decided before the lower appellate Court. The Full Bench decision in Official Receiver, East Godavari v. Govinda Raju1, lays down that in a suit for ejectment the plaintiff must establish possession within 12 years before suit to show that he has a subsisting title. That decision has no relevance whatsoever to the question which arose to be decided before the lower appellate Court. A person setting up acquisition of title by adverse possession in the case of a property in the possession of the mortgagee according to the Full Bench decision in Periya Aiya Ambalam v. Shanmughasundaram2, must show knowledge of such possession by the mortgagor and unless the requisite length of possession is established as also the fact that this possession is open, adverse and to the knowledge of the mortgagor, no trespasser can claim title by adverse possession against a mortgagor. The finding of the trial Court in this case that the 3rd defendant had not acquired title by adverse possession is based upon good reasons as could be seen from the fact that the 2nd defendant and the husband of the first defendant were both elder brothers of the 3rd defendant. To say that these elder brothers took to this of their own family property in 1917 and 1927 will be almost absurd. Even if Exhibit A-4 is said to be a document which was executed without the knowledge of the husband of the 1st defendant, Exhibit A-5 clinches the issue since the 1st defendant’s husband himself has executed it in favour of his own brother the 2nd defendant in 1927. It is nowhere suggested in the evidence that these two brothers and the 3rd defendant were inimically disposed towards each other or that they had any motive to injure the 3rd defendant. Under the circumstances the finding of the appellate Judge on the question of adverse possession is clearly wrong and has to be set aside. The second appeal is, therefore, allowed and there will be a preliminary decree for redemption of the mortgage covered by Exhibit A-4. The appellant will have his costs in all the Courts payable by defendants 1 and 3. No leave. V.S. ----- Appeal allowed.