https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292020 A mere payment endorsement on a mortgage bond does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability unless its language can reasonably be read as admitting that further money remains due; on the words used here, no subsisting liability was admitted, so limitation was not saved under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. An amendment to Section 20 by Act XVI of 1942 could not retrospectively revive a mortgage claim already barred under the earlier law, absent express legislative provision for revival. The claim therefore remained time-barred and could not be enforced. en-us Fri, 19 Aug 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Dec 2020 14:03:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292020 A mere payment endorsement on a mortgage bond does not amount to an acknowledgment of liability unless its language can reasonably be read as admitting that further money remains due; on the words used here, no subsisting liability was admitted, so limitation was not saved under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. An amendment to Section 20 by Act XVI of 1942 could not retrospectively revive a mortgage claim already barred under the earlier law, absent express legislative provision for revival. The claim therefore remained time-barred and could not be enforced. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Aug 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292020