JUDGMENT

Mortgage - Redemption - Limitation.

Where the passages in the sale deed, dt/- 1-11-1913, contained two specific recitals, first that "the original consideration and interest under had accrued and was payable to the instant vendor" which acknowledged that the mortgage had not been redeemed and that the mortgage moneys remained outstanding to the mortgagee from the mortgagor as on the date of the sale deed and the second that what stood transferred to the purchaser was not only the right of the mortgagee for recovering the principal amounts and interest according to the mortgage deed but also "the rights and interest" regarding the redemption of the mortgaged land, which clearly manifested an intention on the part of the mortgagee to acknowledge that his right to recover the moneys under the mortgage deed as well as his liability to have the property redeemed by the mortgagor in the event of his paying off the moneys due under the instrument both stood vested in the purchaser, it was held that the said recitals in the document constituted an acknowledgment of liability for redemption within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act. Consequently a suit for redemption of mortgage dt. 22-5-1886 filed on 28-12-1968 would not be barred by time in view of S. 30 of Limitation Act as the sale deed dt. 1-11-1913 containing the acknowledgment as above constitutted a fresh starting point for computation of limitation and the suit could be filed on or before 1st of Jan. 1971 i.e. 7 years after the date of coming into force of Act i.e. 1-1-1964.

Judgment of High Court reversed. (Para 6)

It could not be said in such a case, that the suit was barred by time as in the cause title of the suit in the trial court the suit was described as Case Civil Suit No. 204 of 1973 and the date of institution was set out as 28-12-1968 / 18-4-1973. When such point was not specifially taken either in the trial court or in the first appellate court and on the other hand in the trial court the plaintiff had adverted to the provisions of the Limitation Act and the position that the suit should have been filed within 7 years of the application of the new Act and urged that the suit was within time which contention was accepted by the trial court. Moreover, the High Court in the course of its judgment pointed out that the suit had been filed on 28th of December, 1968. (Para 7)

JUDGMENT

RANGANATHAN, J.:— We grant leave in the Special Leave Petition and proceed to dispose of the appeal on the merits after hearing both sides.

2. The appellant is the successor-in-interest of the mortgagor of the suit property. The suit property was mortgaged on 22-5-1886. In the normal course the suit for redemption should have been filed on or before 22-5-1946, the limitation for such a suit being 60 years under the Limitation Act, 1908. The appellant, however, filed the suit for redemption only on 28-12-1968. He sought to meet the plea of limitation by urging that the son of the original mortgagee, while selling the property on 1-11-1913, had specifically acknowledged the right of the mortgagor to redeem the property. It was claimed that this acknowledgment constituted a fresh starting point for computing the period of limitation.

3. If the plea of the mortgagor were right and the Limitation Act, 1908. had continued to be operative. the suit for redemption could have been filed on or before the Ist of November. 1973. However, in the meantime the Limitation Act, 1963 replaced the Limitation Act of 1908. The period of limitation for a suit for redemption was reduced under the new Act to 30 years. Section 30 of the Act, however. provided as follows :

Section 30. Provision for suits, etc., for which the prescribed period is shorter than the period prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908-

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,-

(a) any suit for which the period of limitation is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, may be ins