TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed as redemption suit time-barred under Travancore Limitation Reg.</h1> The court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant's suit for redemption was time-barred as per the Travancore Limitation Regulation VI of 1100 ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. Period of limitation for redemption of mortgaged property.3. Subrogation rights of a redeeming co-mortgagor.4. Applicability of the Travancore Limitation Regulation VI of 1100 M.E.5. Impact of acknowledgment on extending the limitation period.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act:The core issue was whether a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act requires the person acknowledging to be under a liability regarding the right in dispute at the time of acknowledgment or if it suffices if the person was liable at the time of the suit or application. The court held that for an acknowledgment to be valid, it must be made by a person who is under an existing liability at the time of making the acknowledgment. The acknowledgment must indicate a subsisting jural relationship, such as that of a debtor and creditor, and must be made with the intention to admit such a relationship. The court concluded that a statement by a person who was not a mortgagee at the time of acknowledgment cannot be considered a valid acknowledgment under Section 19.2. Period of Limitation for Redemption of Mortgaged Property:The court discussed the period of limitation for a suit for redemption of the mortgaged property. According to Article 136 of the Travancore Limitation Regulation VI of 1100 M.E., a suit for redemption against the mortgagee should be filed within 50 years from when the right to redeem accrued. The court noted that even if a 12-year period from the date of redemption by the redeeming co-mortgagor was considered, the suit would still be time-barred. The court emphasized that the period of limitation for such a suit must be the same as in the case of a suit for redemption of the original mortgage.3. Subrogation Rights of a Redeeming Co-Mortgagor:The court recognized that a redeeming co-mortgagor is subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee as against his co-mortgagors. This means that a non-redeeming co-mortgagor is entitled to redeem his share of the mortgaged property from the one who redeemed it from the mortgagee. However, the court clarified that this subrogation does not extend the period of limitation for filing a suit for redemption.4. Applicability of the Travancore Limitation Regulation VI of 1100 M.E.:The court applied the Travancore Limitation Regulation VI of 1100 M.E., specifically Article 136, which prescribes a 50-year period for filing a suit for redemption against the mortgagee. The court noted that this regulation was applicable to the case as the property in dispute was situated in the erstwhile Travancore State. The court held that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed more than 50 years after the right to redeem accrued.5. Impact of Acknowledgment on Extending the Limitation Period:The court examined whether the plaint filed by Sivasankaran Thampi in O.S. 1161 of 1106 M.E., which contained an averment as to the subsistence of the mortgage, constituted a valid acknowledgment of liability. The court held that for an acknowledgment to extend the limitation period, it must be made by a person who is under an existing liability at the time of acknowledgment. Since Sivasankaran Thampi was not in the position of a mortgagee when he made the statement, his acknowledgment could not extend the limitation period. The court concluded that the appellant's right to redeem his share of the mortgaged property was barred by limitation.Conclusion:The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant's suit for redemption was barred by limitation and that the acknowledgment by Sivasankaran Thampi did not constitute a valid acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. The court emphasized that an acknowledgment must be made by a person under an existing liability to be valid and extend the limitation period.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
