1913 (5) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Predecessor's Acknowledgment of Debt Upheld in Mortgage Case, Appeal Dismissed

Mathura Das and Ors. Versus Megh Raj and Anr. Shib Singh and Ors.

The court upheld the acknowledgment made by a predecessor in title, finding it specific to the two mortgages of January 24, 1892, despite inaccuracies in ... - Issues:1. Fresh period of limitation based on acknowledgment by a predecessor in title.2. Interpretation of acknowledgment statement in relation to multiple mortgages.3. Satisfaction of provisions of Section 19 of the Limitation Act regarding acknowledgment.Analysis:1. The appeal in this case pertains to a suit based on a mortgage dated January 24, 1892. The appellants, who purchased a portion of the property ordered to be sold, were not initially parties to the suit filed in July 1910. The plaintiff claimed a fresh period of limitation based on an acknowledgment by a predecessor in title on June 2, 1902. The acknowledgment was made by Ram Dayal in a separate suit, stating, 'The whole of Janki Prasad's mortgage money is owing.' The appellants argued that this acknowledgment was not specific to the mortgage in question, as there were two mortgages with Janki Prasad. However, considering the circumstances and the entirety of Ram Dayal's statement, the acknowledgment was found to refer to the two mortgages of January 24, 1892.2. Ram Dayal's statement was deemed to encompass the entire debt owed to Janki Prasad, as it mentioned members of both sets of mortgagors involved in the two mortgages of 1892. Despite some inaccuracies in naming the individuals, the acknowledgment was considered to relate to the collective debt owed, reinforcing the connection to the specific mortgages in question. The court concluded that the acknowledgment encompassed the entirety of the debt due to Janki Prasad, thereby satisfying the requirement under Section 19 of the Limitation Act.3. The appellants further contended that the acknowledgment did not meet the criteria of Section 19 as it was not directly made to the creditor. Citing a precedent, they argued that an acknowledgment must be addressed to the creditor to be valid. However, the court referred to the explanation in Section 19, which allows for acknowledgment to be made to a person other than the entitled party. Drawing on a previous case where a similar acknowledgment was accepted under analogous circumstances, the court upheld the validity of the acknowledgment in this case. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the appeal and ordering costs to be borne by the appellants.