Priority under earlier mortgages survives against intermediate interests only while the earlier security remains within limitation.

A later mortgagee could rely on earlier mortgages to defeat an intermediate title, but only to the extent those earlier securities remained enforceable and within limitation. An acknowledgment contained in a later mortgage deed did not bind intermediate mortgagees who had already acquired rights, because an acknowledgment extends limitation only against persons legally bound by it. A 1929 application by the intermediate mortgagees was treated as an acknowledgment of the prior rights under the 1918 mortgage, preserving priority to that extent, but it could not revive the already time-barred 1914 mortgage, and estoppel failed for want of proof of altered position. Priority was therefore sustained only in part.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs, as mortgagees under the later mortgage, could rely on the earlier mortgages to claim priority over the appellant's title derived from the intermediate mortgage; (ii) whether the acknowledgment contained in the later mortgage instrument bound the intermediate mortgagees for the purpose of limitation and priority; (iii) whether the 1929 application by the intermediate mortgagees constituted an acknowledgment preserving the plaintiffs' priority under the earlier mortgage.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs, as mortgagees under the later mortgage, could rely on the earlier mortgages to claim priority over the appellant's title derived from the intermediate mortgage.

Analysis: Section 101 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was applied on the footing that the later mortgagee could keep the earlier mortgages alive as against an intermediate estate, but only so far as those earlier mortgages were still enforceable and not barred by limitation. The court treated the later mortgagee as relying not merely on the later security but also on the continued vitality of the earlier securities for the limited purpose of defeating the intermediate title.

Conclusion: Yes. The earlier mortgages could be relied upon for priority, subject to limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the acknowledgment contained in the later mortgage instrument bound the intermediate mortgagees for the purpose of limitation and priority.

Analysis: An acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 can extend limitation only against a person bound by it. The court held that an acknowledgment made after the intermediate mortgagees had already acquired title did not bind them merely because it was contained in a mortgage executed between other parties. The reasoning adopted the principle that a later acknowledgment cannot take away the accrued rights of an intermediate mortgagee who was not a party to it.

Conclusion: No. The acknowledgment in the later mortgage instrument did not bind the intermediate mortgagees.

Issue (iii): Whether the 1929 application by the intermediate mortgagees constituted an acknowledgment preserving the plaintiffs' priority under the earlier mortgage.

Analysis: The application was construed in its context as an unequivocal recognition of the plaintiffs' prior rights under the earlier mortgage, at least in relation to the 1918 mortgage. The court, however, held that the 1914 mortgage had already become time-barred by the time of that acknowledgment and could not be revived. The court also rejected estoppel as a distinct basis because no alteration of position by the plaintiffs was shown.

Conclusion: Yes, but only for the 1918 mortgage; no for the 1914 mortgage and no separate estoppel.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only in part. The plaintiffs were entitled to priority and a preliminary mortgage decree in respect of the 1918 mortgage and the 1926 mortgage to the extent not covered by that earlier charge, while the appellant retained priority over the 1926 mortgage as against the portion not affected by the 1918 mortgage.

Ratio Decidendi: A prior mortgage may be kept alive against an intermediate interest for priority purposes, but an acknowledgment affecting limitation binds only persons whose rights are legally susceptible to it, and a subsequent acknowledgment can preserve priority only to the extent the earlier mortgage was still within limitation.

---