9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit for redemption and possession of mortgaged lands was barred by limitation. 2. Whether the statements in certain documents constituted acknowledgments under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thereby extending the period of limitation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Barred by Limitation: The primary issue was whether the suit for redemption and possession of the mortgaged lands was barred by limitation. The period of limitation for redemption of the mortgages in question was sixty years, which expired in 1929. The appellants contended that certain statements in four documents constituted acknowledgments under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thus extending the period of limitation and saving their suit from being time-barred. 2. Constituting Acknowledgments: The appellants relied on four documents to argue that they contained acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908: - Ex. P. 14: Written statement in Suit No. 50 of 1903, stating that Parmeshwardas held the lands as a mortgagee under the seven mortgages. - Ex. P. 15: Plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1903, referencing the sub-mortgage executed by Parmeshwardas. - Ex. X: Sale-deed executed by Parmeshwardas selling his mortgage rights. - Ex. E: Deed of sub-mortgage executed by Parmeshwardas in 1902. The appellants argued that an admission of the jural relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee was sufficient to constitute an acknowledgment. They contended that such an admission implied a subsisting mortgage and the corresponding right of redemption. The respondents contested this, arguing that a statement must be a conscious and deliberate admission of the right of the mortgagor to redeem and the liability of the maker to be redeemed. The High Court held that the statements did not constitute acknowledgments and dismissed the suit as time-barred. Legal Examination: Section 19(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, requires an acknowledgment of liability in respect of property or right, made in writing and signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. The acknowledgment must be made before the expiry of the period of limitation. The Supreme Court reviewed various decisions and noted a divergence of opinion among different High Courts. Some decisions held that an admission by a mortgagee in a pleading or subsequent transaction was sufficient acknowledgment. Others required a conscious and deliberate admission of liability. The Court referred to its decision in Shapur Fredoom Mazda v. Durga Prosad, which clarified that an acknowledgment must relate to a subsisting liability and indicate the jural relationship with the intention of admitting it. The admission need not be express but must be clear enough to imply the subsisting liability. Application to the Case: - Ex. E (April 8, 1902): The mortgage-deed referred to the mortgage for describing the interest being mortgaged, not for admitting a subsisting mortgage. - Ex. X (August 16, 1902): The sale-deed recited the mortgages to describe the seller's rights, not to admit a subsisting jural relationship. - Ex. P. 15: The plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1903 mentioned the sale of mortgage rights to trace the plaintiffs' rights, not to admit a subsisting mortgage. - Ex. P. 14: The written statement in Suit No. 50 of 1903 specifically denied the right of redemption, thus not constituting an acknowledgment. The Court concluded that none of the statements in these documents amounted to acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 19. Therefore, the High Court was correct in holding that the appellants' suit was barred by limitation. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the High Court's judgment that the suit was barred by limitation and that the statements relied upon did not constitute acknowledgments under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
|
