9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit for redemption of the mortgage is barred by limitation. 2. Whether the acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act extends the limitation period for redemption of the mortgage. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the suit for redemption of the mortgage is barred by limitation: The defendant contended that the suit for redemption was barred by limitation because the mortgagor did not redeem the mortgage within sixty years of the execution of the mortgage deed or the stipulated date for payment. The defendant argued that the transfer of the property in favor of Ram Hazari had come to the notice of the plaintiffs more than twelve years before the filing of the suit, thus barring the suit under Article 134 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. The trial court, however, held that the suit was within time and decreed the suit on payment of Rs. 35/- to the defendant. This decision was upheld by the appellate courts. 2. Whether the acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act extends the limitation period for redemption of the mortgage: The plaintiffs argued that the liability under the mortgage deed was admitted by Gauri Shankar in a document executed on 15th June 1906, and that this acknowledgment extended the limitation for redemption under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The relevant portion of Section 19(1) of the Limitation Act states that an acknowledgment of liability made before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application extends the limitation period from the time when the acknowledgment was signed. The court examined whether there was an acknowledgment of liability in the document Ext. 14. The document recited that Sita Ram had obtained the grove under a mortgage deed dated 20th June 1873, and that the grove had become like a sale due to a stipulation in the document. Towards the end of the document, Gauri Shankar stated that Ram Hazari could enjoy the grove in accordance with the conditions of the previous document, and that he and his descendants would have no objection. The court found that Gauri Shankar admitted the mortgage deed and his conditional liability under it as a mortgagee but denied that the liability was continuing. He claimed proprietary rights, which were inconsistent with mortgagee rights. The court concluded that acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 requires acknowledgment of liability existing at the time of the acknowledgment, not of its having existed sometime earlier. The court held that Gauri Shankar's statement did not amount to an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability under the mortgage deed. The court also considered several decided cases cited by the respondents to support their contention that the acknowledgment in the document Ext. 14 should be sufficient to establish acknowledgment of liability under Section 19. However, the court found that these cases involved clear acknowledgment of subsisting liability, which was not present in the case before them. The court emphasized that acknowledgment of liability must be of a subsisting liability and that a denial of continuing liability cannot be construed as an acknowledgment. Conclusion: The court concluded that the suit for possession over the grove was barred by time and should have been dismissed. The appeal was allowed, and the judgments and decrees of the trial court, the first appellate court, and the learned single judge were set aside. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs to the appellant throughout.
|
