https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297089 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. en-us Thu, 11 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2021 12:10:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297089 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Apr 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297089