Anup Singh And Ors. vs Fateh Chand And Ors. on 14 May, 1920
8. The next argument advanced before us is that we ought to presume that the debt had not become time-barred debt. It has to be conceded that the transfer cannot be held to be binding unless there is proof of legal necessity. In the view which we have expressed above "legal necessity" not only means the existence of a previous debt but the existence of a debt enforceable in a Court of law. If therefore the debt was actuality, barred by limitation at the time of the mortgage, there was no legal necessity for the alienation. The learned advocate for the appellants contends that when it is established that there was a debt originally incurred by the widow and she agreed to pay it, there ought to be a presumption that that debt was enforceable at the time when the mortgage was made. But a mere agreement to pay off a debt does not necessarily involve any acknowledgment that the debt was still enforceable in a Court of law. Many an honest man would be willing to pay a time-barred debt without the least hesitation. We think this is the principle underlying the decision of the learned Judges in the case of Anup Singh v. Fateh Chand A.I.R. 1920 All. 92, where it was held by, the majority that a mere acknowledgment of a liability did not amount to an acknowledgment that the liability was not barred by time and was enforceable in a Court of law. The question whether the debts were barred or not is a part of the question of legal necessity which arose in this case and the whole burden of establishing the legal necessity had to be discharged by the defendants. They failed to discharge