Ancient mortgage acknowledgments in khewat entries save limitation only if timely, written, and made while redemption rights subsist.

An attested khewat entry can save limitation for redemption of an ancient mortgage only if it constitutes a written acknowledgment by the mortgagee or person claiming under him within the prescribed period while the mortgagor's right of redemption was still subsisting. The 1852 entry merely recorded mortgagee possession and the mortgage money, without proving the date of the mortgage or any acknowledgment of the right of redemption, so it did not extend limitation. The 1878 entry was likewise only a record of possession and mortgage terms, and the plaintiffs failed to prove that it was timely or that the mortgage was still legally subsisting. On that basis, the redemption claims were barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the attested entry in the khewat of 1852 operated as an acknowledgment saving limitation for the redemption suits; (ii) whether the attested entry in the khewat of 1878 amounted to a valid acknowledgment of liability or a subsisting right of redemption so as to extend limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the attested entry in the khewat of 1852 operated as an acknowledgment saving limitation for the redemption suits.

Analysis: The governing law required a written acknowledgment signed by the mortgagee or a person claiming under him, and under the earlier limitation scheme an acknowledgment had to be made within the statutory period measured from the date of the mortgage. The 1852 entry merely recorded possession as mortgagees and the mortgage money, but did not mention the mortgagor's right of redemption or establish that the mortgage was within the requisite period. In the absence of proof of the date and subsistence of the original mortgage, the entry could not be treated as a legally effective acknowledgment saving time.

Conclusion: The 1852 entry did not save limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the attested entry in the khewat of 1878 amounted to a valid acknowledgment of liability or a subsisting right of redemption so as to extend limitation.

Analysis: The Court held that the 1878 entry was at best a record of possession and of the mortgage terms, and did not show that the mortgagees consciously acknowledged an enforceable subsisting liability. Even if the wording could be treated as an acknowledgment, the burden remained on the plaintiffs to prove that it was made within the prescribed period and that the mortgage was still legally subsisting. Since the date of the original mortgage was not proved, no presumption could be drawn that the acknowledgment fell within time, and the statutory requirements for saving limitation were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The 1878 entry did not save limitation, and the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of proving a subsisting and timely enforceable right of redemption.

Final Conclusion: The redemption claims were barred by limitation and unsupported by proof of the specific mortgages set up, so the appeals could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: For an ancient mortgage, a settlement entry can save limitation only if it is shown to be a written acknowledgment made within the period prescribed by law and while the right of redemption was still legally subsisting; a bare entry of mortgagee possession without proof of the mortgage date does not shift that burden.

---