AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Taking the view most favourable to the plaintiffs, Kunham Haji was entitled to only a share; in the mortgaged properly at the date of Exhibit C. The question then is, whether the acknowledgment made by him in Exhibit C would be sufficient to give a new starting point for limitation u/s 1, Clause 15 of Act XIV of 1859. We are of opinion that it would not. Vide Bhogilal v. Amritlal 17 B.k 173, and Dharma v. Balmokand 18 A.k 458.
The fact that Kunham Haji subsequently acquired the whole of the mortgaged property can make no difference. The acknowledgment to be effectual must have been a good acknowledgment at the date when it was made.
We, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.