Written acknowledgment of mortgage liability can restart limitation even if alleged part payment is not independently proved.

A written acknowledgment of liability, if proved to have been made before expiry of limitation, creates a fresh limitation period under Section 18 and can save a mortgage suit from being time-barred. On the evidence, Ex. 1 was held to be in the defendant's handwriting and to contain an admission of the mortgage debt and remittance against it. The court treated the witness evidence and surrounding circumstances as reliable, and found the handwriting comparison unsafe on the facts. The alleged part payment did not need independent proof to sustain limitation once the acknowledgment was established, and the suit was therefore within time.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the document Ex. 1 was proved to have been written and signed by the defendant so as to amount to an acknowledgment of liability under the mortgage. (ii) Whether such acknowledgment, and the alleged part payment, extended the limitation period and saved the suit from being time-barred.

Issue (i): Whether the document Ex. 1 was proved to have been written and signed by the defendant so as to amount to an acknowledgment of liability under the mortgage.

Analysis: The evidence of the witness who was present when the writing was made, together with the surrounding circumstances, was found credible. The defendant's denial was not accepted in view of inconsistencies in his version, his conduct regarding specimen writings, and the unreliability of the defence evidence. The handwriting comparison by the single judge was held to be unsafe in the circumstances. On the proved contents, Ex. 1 contained an admission of the mortgage and of remittance of money against the mortgage debt.

Conclusion: Ex. 1 was duly proved to be in the defendant's handwriting and operated as an acknowledgment of liability.

Issue (ii): Whether such acknowledgment, and the alleged part payment, extended the limitation period and saved the suit from being time-barred.

Analysis: Acknowledgment in writing under Section 18 and part payment under Section 19 are independent bases for a fresh period of limitation. Since the acknowledgment was made before expiry of the prescribed period, a fresh limitation period commenced from the date of Ex. 1. The absence of independent proof of the alleged cash or cheque payment did not defeat the effect of the acknowledgment. In any event, the admission contained in Ex. 1 also supported the plaintiff's case on part payment.

Conclusion: The suit was within limitation and was not barred by time.

Final Conclusion: The appellate judgment was set aside, the trial court's decree was restored, and the plaintiff's mortgage suit succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment of liability in writing, if proved to have been made before expiry of limitation, by itself gives rise to a fresh period of limitation, and its effect is not negated merely because an alleged part payment is independently unproved.

---