9911796707
TMI Blog1913 (5) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anuary, 1892. The court below has made a decree in the plaintiff's favour, but certain persons have preferred an appeal. They are the purchasers of a portion of the property which the court below has ordered to be sold. The present suit was instituted on the 11th of July, 1910, but the appellants were not made parties to that suit until the 14th of July, 1911. It will thus appear that the suit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne as the other and that therefore it is no sufficient acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. If it could be made good that the statement might apply equally to one of two mortgages and did not apply to both, a great deal might be said for the present appeal. However, the statement of Ram Dayal must be taken in conjunction with the circumstances and the rest of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs joined together. Reading the statement which Ram Dayal made as a whole, it is perfectly clear that he was referring to the two mortgages of the 24th of January, 1892, though he was probably unaware that the money was advanced on two documents instead of one. 2. It is quite clear that he was referring to the entire debt due to Janki Prasad because he refers to some members of each of the two se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
