Madras High Court
E. Retnamma Pillai Thankachi vs P. Kamalam Mudaliar And Ors. on 4 October, 1976
Equivalent citations: (1978)1MLJ186
Author: V. Ramaswami
Bench: V. Ramaswami
JUDGMENT V. Ramaswami, J.
1. The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage of the year 1865. He claimed that the suit was not barred by limitation on the ground that there was an assignment of the mortgage to the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents under Exhibit A-8 dated 2nd June, 1898 and a later purakkadom (subsequent charge) of the same year and also a subsequent acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees on 14th October, 1912.
2. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees made on 14th October, 1912 will save the suit from the bar of limitation. It is well-settled that an acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees will not give a fresh starting point of limitation. As early as in Vaikunta Bhakta v. Kunni Pakki Beari (1909) 19 M.L.J. 288, a Division Bench of this Court held following an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in Bhogilal v. Amritlal (1893) I.L.R. 17 Bom. 173, that an acknowledgment by one of the several heirs of the mortgagee of the mortgagor's right of redemption would not be sufficient to give a new starting point for limitation under Section I, Clause 15, of Act XIV of 1859 corresponding to Section 20 of the Limitation Act of 1963. In fact subsequent decisions of the Allahabad High Court in Dharmo v. Balamukund (1896) I.L.R. 18 All. 458 and of the Punjab High Court in Mawasi Raji Ram v. Mt. Manbharai A.I.R. 1964 Punj. 226, have taken the same view. The learned Counsel for the appellant was not able to rely on any other decision contra. Therefore the plaintiff could not rely on the acknowledgment by one of the mortgagees made on 14th October, 1912. It is not in dispute that if this acknowledgment would not start a new point of limitation the suit is barred by limitation.
3. The second appeal therfore fails and it is dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs. No leave.