Judgement

Appeal (No. 98 of 1930) from a decree of the High Court (January 9, 1929) affirming a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh (April 26, 1926).

The suit was brought on February 24, 1925, by the appellant against the respondents to recover, as heir to his grandfather, immovable property which his grandfather had transferred to his (the grandfathers) wife, the first respondent, by a deed of gift dated June "16, 1909. The respondents, among other defences, pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court (Das and Adami JJ.), affirming the judgment of the trial judge, held that the suit was barred by limitation. Both Courts held that the petition of March 16, 1916, signed by the first respondent, which petition is set out in the present judgment, was not an acknowledgment of right within the meaning of s. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to cause a fresh period of limitation to be computed. The judgment of the trial judge referred also to Faki v. Khotu (1) as deciding that the petition was not admissible in evidence as it was not registered.

1931. Nov. 5, 6. Dunne K.C. and Wallac