The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of acknowledgments of mortgage and their implications on the limitation period for the suit.

1. The second appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of a mortgage; and two questions are raised by the appellant, the fourth defendant, who lost in both the lower courts. The first is that the suit property belonged exclusively to her tawazhi.

2. The main tarwad of the appellant was known as the Edamuttathu tarwad. It was partitioned into two branches; and one of the branches had three sub-branches or tavazhies, Kulavarathala, Pulimoodu and Kottarakonathu. The plaintiff-respondents belonged to the first tavazhi; and the appellant and the other defendants belonged to the second tavazhi. The respondents claimed that they purchased the right of the third tavazhi; and they therefore claimed redemption of two shares out of three of the mortgage and the purakatom. One of the pleas raised by the appellant was that the mortgage and the purakatom were executed by her tawazhi. a partition having taken place in the branch earlier to the mortgage and the purakatom. It is the same contention that is reiterated before me.

3. Reliance is placed by the appellant on Ex. N for this contention. Ex. N is a mortgage document, under which several individuals are given separate shares in the mortgage money. From this it is contended that the branch was already partitioned. The mere division of the mortgage money under Ex. N is not sufficient to presume that there was a partition. On the other hand, the respondents rely on Ex. G, the decree in O. S. No. 1214 of 1108. That was a suit for partition of the properties belonging to the appellant's tavazhi. The appellant and the other defendants were parties to that suit; and the present suit property was also included therein. But it is recited that the tavazhi had only a third right in the suit property. That shows that in 1108 the branch was not partitioned. Therefore, at the time of the suit mortgage and purakatom the branch could not have been partitioned; and the decision of the lower courts on this question is correct.

4. The next question urged is that the lower courts are wrong in thinking that there was an acknowledgment of the mortgage sought to be redeemed. The date of the mortgage is not known; and the respondents relied on Ex. A, a surrender of the mortgage. Ex. A is of 1073: and the respondents claimed that that was an assignment and that it acknowledged the earlier mortgage. They also claimed that Ex. J, a written statement filed in a suit to set aside Ex. A, was itself a further acknowledgment. It may also be pointed out that there was a purakatom of 1078 evidenced by Ex. B, which can again be claimed to be an acknowledgment. The question for consideration is whether these constitute acknowledgments as decided by the lower courts.

5. Two decisions are relied on by the lower appellate court: (1) the decision of the Supreme Court in Shapoor Freedom Mazda v. Durga Prosad Chamaria (AIR. 1961 SC. 1236); and (2) the Division Bench ruling of this Court in Sankara Pillai Kunjukrishna Pillai v. Ananda Pitta Bharathi Amma (1957 KLT. 732). The counsel of the appellant draws my attention to the recent Full Bench decision of the Madras High; Court in Valliamma Champaka v. Sivathanu Pillai (AIR. 1964 Mad. 269). The argument of the counsel of the appellant is that Ex. A is not an assignment but only a release, and if so, the acknowledgment therein will not be an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability so as to give a fresh starting point for limitation. If is for this purpose that he relies on the Madras Full Bench ruling.

6. Even if the contention of the appellant's counsel is accepted that Ex. A is not an assignment but only a surrender, still the appellant cannot succeed, since the Division Bench ruling of this Court is against her. At any rate, since the question has been argued at some length, I propose to consider the question.

7. The Supreme Court says that acknowledgment must relate to "a present subsisting liability", though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liab