Acknowledgment of liability requires an existing jural relationship; a co-mortgagor's plaint before subrogation did not extend limitation.

A plaint filed by a co-mortgagor before redemption and before subrogation to the mortgagee's rights did not amount to a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19. The court reasoned that an acknowledgment must be an admission of an existing liability made by a person who is under a subsisting jural relationship in respect of the right claimed; here, the declarant was only a co-mortgagor at the time and was not yet liable in the character in which the acknowledgment was relied upon. A mere statement that the mortgage subsisted was therefore insufficient. Limitation was not extended, and the later redemption suit was barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether a plaint filed by a co-mortgagor, before he had redeemed the mortgage and before subrogation to the mortgagee's rights, could operate as a valid acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation for a later suit for redemption by the non-redeeming co-mortgagor.

Analysis: A valid acknowledgment under Section 19 requires an admission of an existing liability by the party against whom the right is claimed, made while that party is under a subsisting jural relationship in respect of the right in question. The statement relied on was made when the declarant was only a co-mortgagor and had not yet become the mortgagee by subrogation. At that stage there was no present liability on his part in the character in which the acknowledgment was sought to be used, and a mere assertion in the plaint that the mortgage subsisted could not amount to an acknowledgment of liability by a person who was then not the mortgagee or otherwise liable in respect of the redemption claim.

Conclusion: The plaint was not a valid acknowledgment under Section 19, limitation was not extended, and the redemption suit was barred.

---