Kottal Uppi Haji vs Vayoth Randupurayil Mammavan

Relying on the case of Mylapore Iyasawmy Vyapoory Moodliar v. Yeo Kay, I. L. R. 14 C 801 the lower appellate court has held that the

acknowledgment in Exh. A is not sufficient to remove the bar of limitation. Exh. A was a will executed by the mortgagee, the predecessor in title of

the defendants. The testator therein described the plaint lands as ""demised to me on kanom."" The question is whether this is such an

acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property as to bring it within the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. There can be no

doubt that it was an acknowledgment by the testator, that he then held the estate on kanom title. The defendant in this suit admitted that the

mortgage of 1805 was true but relied on the Act of Limitations. He failed to show that there was any other mortgage to which the acknowledgment

of the testator could have referred. Under these circumstances the decision of the Munsif that the acknowledgment is sufficient must be upheld

unless we are prepared to hold that the absence of the name of the mortgagor and of the date of the mortgage are sufficient to deprive the

acknowledgment of validity. Section 19 does not provide for the mention of the name of the mortgagor but lays down that the acknowledgment is

sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the right. Under the Act of 1871 an acknowledgment of the mortgagor''s title or right of

redemption was required and if it had been the intention of the legislature that the name of the mortgagor should appear the alteration was

unnecessary. On the contrary the intention of the legislature appears to have been to adopt the principle laid down in the English cases, e.g.,

Stansfield v. Hobson, 16 Beav 236 affirmed in 3 De G. 620 and Anon the case decided by Sir J. Jekyll which will be found at p. 314 of 3 Atkyn''s

Reports. As to the decision of the Privy Council on which the judge relies we observe that the admission made by Bennet on which the plaintiff

relied had no reference to the title set up by the plaintiff in the suit, whereas in the present case the admission of the testator Kutiyatha that he held

the property under a subsisting kanom amounted to an acknowledgment of the title of the mortgagor and that title is in the plaintiff. We reverse the

decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs in this and the Lower Appellate Court.