The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 20 of the Limitation Act to determine the acknowledgment of debt and personal liability. Additionally, the judgment clarified the principles of Hindu Law regarding the share of a father in the mortgaged property and the rights of after-born sons to question alienations made by the father.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Kistna in a suit upon a mortgage dated 19th September, 1929, executed by the first defendant for himself and as guardian of his son, the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The third defendant is another son of the first defendant born subsequent to the date of the mortgage. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 2,500 payable with compound interest at Re. 0-14-6 per cent, per month. The plaint alleged that there was a payment of Rs. 600 on 9th November, 1930 and that the said payment was made by one Kasibotla Suryanarayanamurti on behalf of the defendants. The defendants denied that the said sum of Rs. 600 was paid as alleged in the plaint and the first defendant pleaded; that he was not personally liable on the ground that the personal remedy was barred by limitation, the suit having been instituted on 16th March, 1936, more than six years from the date of the mortgage. Defendants 2 and 3 denied the truth and validity of the mortgage. Their case was that the amount was not borrowed for any family necessity or for payment of any antecedent debt but for conducting a business newly started by the first defendant himself. Another point taken was that even assuming the mortgage to be true, it was binding only on the mortgagors share which must be deemed to be one-third and the third defendant though born subsequent to the date of the mortgage would be entitled also to a third share in the property mortgaged. The learned District Judge found the mortgage to be true but held that it was not binding on defendants 2 and 3 on the ground that the amount borrowed was for the purpose of a business started by the father and not for any antecedent debt or family necessity. He also found that Rs. 600 was paid by the said Suryanarayanamurti but he was not an agent duly authorized within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act and therefore the said payment would not save the bar of limitation in respect of the personal liability of the first defendant. He therefore held that the first defendant was not personally liable for the debt. In regard to the interest of the first defendant in the property he held that he was entitled to half a share in the suit property and that the third defendant cannot repudiate the alienation made before his birth. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal in so far as the decree is against him, that is, in so far as it negatived the personal liability of the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 3 have preferred a memorandum of objections raising the contention that the lower Court should have passed a decree only for a third share of the property and not for a half share.

2. Two questions therefore fall to be decided, namely, (1) whether the first defendant is personally liable for the debt and (2) what is the share of the first defendant in the property mortgaged which the plaintiff is entitled to sell in execution o the decree in his favour. The first question turns on the determination of the issue whether the payment of Rs. 600 operates as an acknowledgment of debt within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act. The payment of Rs. 600 was apparently made towards the principal and was so treated by the plaintiff. In order that a part payment of a principal can be relied on for saving the bar of limitation within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, it must fulfil three requisites: (1) the payment must be made by the debtor or his agent; (2) the agent must have been empowered specifically to make the said payment; and (3) there must be an acknowledgment of the said payment in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the debtor or his agent, that is, if the payment was made by the debtor, in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the debtor or if the payment was made by the agent, in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the agent. The question is whether th