The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a valid acknowledgment under S.18 of the Limitation Act for saving limitation in redemption suits. The court emphasized the need for a written and signed admission of subsisting liability as a mortgagee, and clarified that a mere description in the assignment was not sufficient for acknowledgment.

1. The sole question to be decided in these two second appeals, filed by the plaintiffs in two suits, is whether the courts below were correct in dismissing the suits as barred by limitation. The decision rests on the controversy whether two documents pleaded contain acknowledgments saving limitation.

2. Both suits are for redemption of one-half share of the property covered by Ext.Al mortgage of 16.9.1103. Acknowledgments pleaded are those contained in ExtA2 assignment deed dated 17.7.1118 and Ext. A4 assignment dated 26.3.1959. Suits were filed on 13.10.1977.

3. In both the suits, the mortgagees did not contest because they are not in possession. Contest is by their lessees whose claim for fixity of tenure was found against by the Land Tribunal on the ground that they are only lessees of the mortgagees. The suits for redemption are far beyond the period of limitation and even if Ext. A2 is accepted as containing an acknowledgment, the suit will not be within time. Ext.A4 alone could save limitation. Respondents say that what is contained in Ext A4 is only descriptive and it cannot be accepted as acknowledgment They further say that Ext. A4 contain assignment of something more than the mortgage right and hence the period of limitation is only 12 years from that date under Art.61 (b) of the Limitation Act corresponding to old Art.134.

4. The last argument is devoid of any merit The transfer for a valuable consideration contemplated in Art.61(b) is something, other than an express transfer of the original mortgage, in derogation of the title of the mortgagor. It contemplates a transfer by the mortgagee purporting to transfer a larger interest than that given by the mortgage or, at any rate, an interest unencumbered by the mortgage (James Richard, Rennel Skinner v. Kunwar Naunihal Singh - A.I.R. 1929 P.C 158). In such cases, time runs from the date when the transfer became known to the plaintiff. That provision is intended to protect the transferees for value who purchased from the mortgagee an interest larger than what he had and have been allowed to remain in possession and enjoyment of such larger interest for a period of 12 years even after such interest became known to the plaintiff. It is also to give a warning to the plaintiff and compel him to watch and cut down the estate by intervening. For the applicability of the article, it is not necessary that transfer by the mortgagee should be an absolute estate. But it is necessary that it should be a larger interest that the mortgagee did not have and which is likely affect the rights of the mortgagor if allowed to continue. By Ext. A4 what is transferred is only the mortgage right Nothing more is claimed or transferred. The argument was based on a statement containing a direction to the assignee that he should enjoy AXoXXambn". It is claimed to be a direction to enjoy in derogation of the mortgage. It can only be a mistake for. A different interpretation is not possible at all because no such claim is there. Normal inference is that direction was to enjoy subject to the mortgage. Therefore, Art.61 (b) has no application.

5. Equally I do not find any force in the contention of the appellants that the plea of limitation is barred by constructive res judicata. The argument was that while claiming fixity of tenure before the Land Tribunal, the respondents did not plea that Ext Al is barred by limitation and for that reason they are entitled to fixity even though they are only lessees of the mortgagees. The question whether the mortgage is barred by limitation or not was not a contention that might and ought to have been raised before the Land Tribunal when redeemability of the mortgage was not an issue at all. The question of limitation for redeeming the mortgage will arise only when the mortgage is sought to be redeemed or the question or redemption otherwise arises for consideration. In such cases, even without a contention, it is the duty of court to see whether the su