As plaintiffs' suit was commenced in 1984, their action is barred and any rights they might have had are extinguished. See B.W. Leo Harris Co. v. City of Hastings, 240 Minn. 44, 59 N.W.2d 813, 816 (1953) (construction of § 541.023); Beaver v. Cowan, 104 Okl. 63, 230 P. 251 (1924) (action by heirs of allottee barred by Arkansas statute, where sale by allottee's devisee to third party approved by Secretary of Interior, even if Secretary was without such authority); Beeman v. Holt, 109 Okl. 256, 235 P. 167 (1925) (same); but cf. Begay v. Albers, 721 F.2d 1274 (10th Cir. 1983) (where allotment issued pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 332, rather than treaty, no mention of § 347 or any statute of limitations in affirming judgment that Indian allottees recover possession and title to land conveyed by forged deeds approved by Secretary of Interior). IV. WAIVER OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY

That was longer than the period fixed by law in which an undisturbed possession and asserted ownership of property may by prescription ripen into title, whether the point be considered as controlled either by the seven year provision of the Arkansas law in force at the date of the deed, or by the present law, which in the circumstances of this case would be 15 years. As to the former, see Beeman v. Holt, 109 Okla. 256, 235 P. 167, and Foreman v. Marks, 117 Okla. 285, 246 P. 441; as to the latter, see sections 183 and 8554, C. O. S. 1921; Wade v. Crouch Edwards, 14 Okla. 593, 78 P. 91, and other cases cited under the particular sections. During that period, so far as the record discloses, plaintiffs were resting under no disability in respect to their right of challenge.