Part payment and valid written acknowledgment must exist before suit to save limitation; defective attestation defeats mortgage enforcement.

Part payment extended limitation under the Indian Limitation Act only where a written acknowledgment signed by the payer existed before the suit was instituted; a later or absent acknowledgment could not revive a time-barred money claim, so the personal decree was barred. The mortgage bond also failed on the evidence because attestation was not proved to be legally proper, given the discrepancy between writing, execution, and registration. The bond was therefore not enforceable as a valid mortgage, and the claim failed both as a personal suit and as a mortgage suit.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether part payments could extend limitation under section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act without a written acknowledgment in existence before the suit was filed; (ii) Whether the mortgage bond was duly attested and enforceable as a mortgage.

Issue (i): Whether part payments could extend limitation under section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act without a written acknowledgment in existence before the suit was filed.

Analysis: The provision required not only payment within the prescribed period, but also an acknowledgment of the payment in writing signed by the payer. The decisive fact for limitation was the date of institution of the suit, and the materials relied upon must have existed when the plaint was filed. A later or absent acknowledgment could not revive a claim that was already time-barred.

Conclusion: The claim for a personal money decree was barred by limitation, and section 20 could not be invoked on the facts proved.

Issue (ii): Whether the mortgage bond was duly attested and enforceable as a mortgage.

Analysis: The evidence of the attesting witnesses, read with the dates of writing, execution, and registration, showed that attestation took place on the date the document was written, while execution occurred on a later date at a different place. On that evidence, the attestation could not be treated as legally proper.

Conclusion: The bond was not duly attested and could not be enforced as a valid mortgage bond.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the plaintiffs' claim followed because the suit failed both as a personal claim and as a mortgage suit, leaving the appellant successful in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: To save a money claim under section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act, the written acknowledgment of part payment must exist before the suit is instituted, and a mortgage bond can be enforced only if attestation is proved to be legally valid on the evidence.

---