AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question we now have to determine is whether the plaintiffs claim to redeem the mortgage of 1815 is barred by limitation. The District Judge
has found that the bar of limitation is saved by admission. He relies on certain documents mentioned in his finding. If there had been no
acknowledgment by the mortgagee, the claim would have become barred in 1875.
The question must, therefore, be decided with reference to the law of limitation in force at that time. Article 148 of the Act of 1871 is in the
same terms as Section 1, Clause 15, of the Act of 1859, which requires an acknowledgment in writing of the mortgagor''s right of redemption
signed by the mortgagee or some person claiming under him.
The documents, relied on by the District Judge as evidence of acknowledgments, are Exhibits D.J. and II. Assuming that these documents are
admissible as evidence, that acknowledgments have been made and signed, we are of opinion that they do not operate so as to prevent the suit
from being barred by limitation. The acknowledgment to be effective for the purpose of saving limitation must be an acknowledgment by some
person claiming the entirety of the mortgagee''s rights. See Bhojilal v. Amritlal 17 B.k 173. We are not satisfied that the acknowledgments relied
upon, assuming them to have been made, were made by a party in whom the entirety of the mortgagee''s rights were vested.
We must, therefore, hold that the plaintiff''s claim to redeem the mortgage of 1815 is barred by limitation.
There will be a declaration that, the mortgage of 1841 has not been satisfied. The parties will bear their own costs in the Court of First Instance
and in the lower Appellate Court.
The plaintiff will pay the 26th defendant''s costs in this Court.