Ramachandra Iyer, C.J.-

This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for redemption brought by one co-mortgagor against another who had earlier redeemed the mortgage and obtained possession of the mortgaged properties. The question which has necessitated a reference to the Full Bench can be formulated thus:

Whether in order to constitute a valid acknowledgment of liability under section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, it is essential that the person acknowledging should be under a liability in regard to the right in dispute at the time when he made the acknowledgment or whether it would be sufficient if he were liable at the time of the suit or an application in respect of that liability?

Before considering the question we shall refer to the facts which have given rise to this appeal. Madi Pillai, the original owner of the property which forms the subject-matter of this litigation, created in the year 1869 (14-10-1044 M.E.) an usufructuary mortgage over it in favour of one Raman Kumaran. The mortgagor’s right in course of time devolved on two persons, Kanakkan Thampi and Sivasankaran Thampi. The latter who was in the position of a mortgagor instituted a suit in the Sub-Court, Padmanabapuram (Original Suit No. 1161 of 1106) against the mortgagee for redemption. In due course he obtained a decree, paid up the mortgage money and obtained delivery of possession of the entire mortgaged property. This was on 11-12-1107 M.E., that is, in the year 1932. The half-right in the equity of redemption which vested in Kanakkan Thampi was subsequently purchased in the year 1946 from his successor-in-interest by the appellant who on 1st February, 1954, filed the suit which has given rise to this appeal for redemption of his share of the mortgaged property. Both the Courts below have held the claim to be barred by limitation.

The claim for redemption is made on the basis that the first respondent’s predecessor-in-interest, Sivasankaran Thampi, on redeeming the entire mortgage was subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee so far as the appellant’s half-share of the mortgaged property was concerned, albeit the mortgage, so far as the redeeming mortgagor’s share was concerned, had been extinguished.

The property in dispute is situate in the Kanyakumari district, which prior to the re-organisation of States in the Indian Union formed part of the Princely State of Travancore and latterly of Travancore-Cochin State.

There was no enactment similar to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, in the former State of Travancore, which could be applied to such mortgages. The rights of the co-mortagors, inter se, on redemption by one of them have, therefore, to be decided on principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Applying those principles it has been recognised that a redeeming co-mortgagor will be subrogated to the rights of the mortagee as against his own co-mortgagors. From that it would follow that a non-redeeming co-mortgagor will be entitled to redeem his share of the mortgaged property from the one who had redeemed it from the mortgagee. On that basis, the period of limitation for such a suit must be the same as in the case of a suit for redemption of the original mortgage.

The law relating to limitation of suits in the erstwhile Travancore State was governed by Travancore Limitation Regulation VI of 1100 M.E. Article 126 of that Regulation, corresponded to Article 148 of the Indian Limitation Act. That prescribed that a suit for redemption against the mortgagee should be filed within a period of fifty years from the time when the right to redeem accrued.

On the terms of the mortgage in the present case it was redeemable by 14th February, 1856 (1056 M.E.). By the time the present suit was filed more than fifty years had elapsed. The suit claim was, therefore, prima facie barred by limitation. Even if it were to be held that the appellant should have a period of 12 years for redemption of his share of the mortgaged property from the date when the first res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document