Judgment :- 1. The appellants sued to set aside a melpattom Ext. I, and a mortgage Ext. B, with respect to the suit property The property was allotted to the first plaintiff on a family partition and was gifted by him in the year 1122 to his wife, the 4th defendant, reserving his right to enjoy for his lifetime. The 4th defendant then gave Ext. I on the 15th Kumbhom, 1115, to Thresia and another, who assigned their right to defendants 1 and 2 by Ext. II on the 7th Edavom 1115. On the same day, the 4th defendant mortgaged the property with possession by Ext. B to defendants 1 & 2, who assigned the mortgage to the 3rd defendant by Ext. III in the year 1116. The 3rd defendant assigned the right to defendants 3 and 6 by Ext. IV. Alleging that Exts. I and B are invalid, the first plaintiff and his son, the second plaintiff, sued to set them aside. Defendants 5 and 6 resisted the suit. The two courts have dismissed the suit, as barred by limitation. 2. Ext. B has been found to be unsupported by consideration and necessity so far as the 4th defendant's tavazhi, to whom the property was alleged to belong, was concerned; the 4th defendant was not competent to grant the mortgage. The suit was within time to set aside Ext. B, and the decree of the lower court refusing to set it aside cannot be supported. The plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration that Ext. B is not valid and is not binding on them. 3. The Subordinate Judge in appeal has also held, that by the execution of Ext. B, the right under Ext. I became merged in it; this is so. But once Ext. B is found or declared to be invalid, Ext. I revived. This has been held in Ramunni v. Kerala Varma Valia Raja ILR.15 Madras 166. In Mulla on Transfer of Property Act, 4th edition, it is observed thus, at page 584: "If the higher security fails, the lower revives. If a mortgagee purchases the property mortgaged and the sale deed fails for want of registration, or because the property was under attachment, or if the sale is avoided as a fraud on creditors, he can still fall back on the mortgage. If a mortgagee purchases the property mortgaged and the sale deed fails for want of registration, or because the property was under attachment, or if the sale is avoided as a fraud on creditors, he can still fall back on the mortgage. A mortgagee in possession under an invalid sale is still a mortgagee, and may bring the property to sale, or may be sued for redemption." It has therefore to be held that Ext. I revived upon the declaration, that Ext. B is invalid. But the possession of the lessee under Ext. I has been adverse to the first plaintiff from its inception, because he had the right to be in possession. This is clear from the relevant clause in Ext. A, supported by the testimony of Pw.1. More than twelve years having expired from the date of Ext. I, defendants 5 & 6 have prescribed for a lease-hold interest as against the first plaintiff. Even the first plaintiff is not entitled to recover possession of the property; the second plaintiff has in any case, no such right during the subsistence of the first plaintiff's interest. 4. The plaintiffs have no right to set aside Ext. I, because more than twelve years had elapsed after it was given. The second plaintiff has been a minor, but this consideration does not arise, because the second plaintiff had an elder brother who was more than twenty four years old at the time of the institution of the suit, who must be deemed to be the karnavan of the tavazhi of the 4th defendant, and who, as competent to give a discharge, should have sued to set it aside within twelve years. For this reason, Ext. I is not liable to be set aside. 5. But this does not preclude the second plaintiff from exercising his right as lessor, to recover possession of the lease-hold when his right to possession accrues. It need hardly be stated, that such right is exercisable according to law in force at the time. 6. In the result, the decree of the court below is modified by setting aside Ext. B. With this modification and subject to the above observations, the appeal is dismissed. I do not order costs in this court.