Mortgage security and limitation: part payment saves time only if the debtor still remains liable and interested in the property.

The mortgage deeds were construed as covering Mauza Bahaldih as part of one composite security, because the covenants and default clauses authorised sale of all named properties, including that mauza. On limitation, a suit to enforce money charged on immovable property fell under Article 132 and had to be filed within twelve years from when the money became due; part payment under Section 20 extended time only if made by a person still liable and still interested in the mortgaged property. Accordingly, payments made after the mortgagor had transferred his interest could not save the earlier mortgage claim, which was time-barred, while the later mortgage remained within limitation. Dispossession of the mortgagee did not itself extend time under Section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Mauza Bahaldih was included in the mortgage security under the two mortgage deeds. (ii) Whether the suit for enforcement of the mortgage claims was within limitation, including the effect of part payments after the mortgagor had transferred portions of the mortgaged property and the effect of dispossession under section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Issue (i): Whether Mauza Bahaldih was included in the mortgage security under the two mortgage deeds.

Analysis: The covenants of the mortgage deeds showed that the mortgagor dealt with the three mauzas as part of one security. Although certain clauses separately referred to the properties described in different schedules, the deed also authorised the mortgagees, upon default, to realise the amount due by sale of all the named properties, including Mauza Bahaldih. The distinction drawn between the mauzas did not justify reading the security as confined only to Bansjora and Simitanr.

Conclusion: Mauza Bahaldih was mortgaged under the two deeds.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for enforcement of the mortgage claims was within limitation, including the effect of part payments after the mortgagor had transferred portions of the mortgaged property and the effect of dispossession under section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Analysis: A suit to enforce money charged upon immoveable property was governed by Article 132 of the Limitation Act and had to be brought within twelve years from the date the money became due. Under section 20 of the Limitation Act, part payment extends limitation only when made by a person liable to pay the debt. After the mortgagor had parted with his interest in Bansjora and Simitanr, part payments made by him could not extend limitation against the transferees of the equity of redemption. As to the later mortgage, the mortgagor still retained an interest in Mauza Bahaldih when the payment of Rs. 100 was made, so limitation was extended for that mortgage. For the earlier mortgage, however, the mortgagor had lost all interest in the mortgaged properties before the relevant payment, and the claim was therefore time-barred. Dispossession of the mortgagee was not itself a ground for extending limitation for a suit to enforce the mortgage, and section 68 of the Transfer of Property Act did not alter the period prescribed by the Limitation Act for such a suit.

Conclusion: The claim under the mortgage dated 27 August 1922 was within limitation, but the claim under the mortgage dated 14 June 1922 was barred.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside in part, and relief was granted only in respect of the later mortgage while the earlier mortgage claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Part payment extends limitation only when made by a person who remains liable on the debt and retains an interest in the mortgaged property, and dispossession of the mortgagee does not by itself extend the statutory period for enforcing the mortgage.

---