Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(7) The learned advocate for the appellant relied on the decision in Pena Parayan Ambalam v. Venkatachala Chettiar 1960-1 Mad LJ 346, for the position that an acknowledgment or statement in a cafe proclamation about the subsisting character of a mortgage by the decree-holder who becomes ultimately the auction purchaser and purchases the property for a low value on the ground that the purchase is subject to the subsisting mortgage would operate as an acknowledgment to save limitation in so far as that mortgage is concerned. But it is clear from the decision that it is only a contention put forward by the appellant in that case and the learned Judge who decided the case merely expressed his view that he was greatly inclined to uphold the contention if he had to decide the question. Thus the observations in the decision are only obiter. The decision however refers to an earlier decision of the High Court, in Krishnayya v. Venkatappayya, AIR 1925 Mad 134. It was a case of an acknowledgment by a son of a judgment debtor who was impleaded as a defendant in that suit and it was held that it did not matter whether at the time of making the acknowledgment the claim could have been enforced against him. The single Judge who decided the case relied on the decision in Jugal Kishore v. Fakhr-ud-din ILR 29 All 90, in support of his decision. The decision in 1960-1 Mad LJ 346, also refers to the decision of the single Judge in Bombay High Court in Fakitchand Janakiram v. Narmada Bai, ILR (1943) Bom 701: (AIR 1943 Bom 461). But that decision was subsequently reversed in a Letters Patent Appeal reported in Fakirchand Janakiram v. Narmada Bai, AIR 1948 330m 125. In my opinion, the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that there was no acknowledgment of liability in Ex. P. 12 by the first defendant in the present suit is correct.