https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199057 The court upheld the acknowledgment made by a predecessor in title, finding it specific to the two mortgages of January 24, 1892, despite inaccuracies in naming individuals. The acknowledgment encompassed the entire debt owed to the creditor, satisfying Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The court ruled that the acknowledgment, although not directly made to the creditor, was valid under Section 19's provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the appellants. en-us Wed, 21 May 1913 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Feb 2018 11:29:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199057 The court upheld the acknowledgment made by a predecessor in title, finding it specific to the two mortgages of January 24, 1892, despite inaccuracies in naming individuals. The acknowledgment encompassed the entire debt owed to the creditor, satisfying Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The court ruled that the acknowledgment, although not directly made to the creditor, was valid under Section 19's provisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the appellants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 May 1913 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199057