1. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 executed a mortgage bond Exhibit A, on 5th August, 1892 in favour of plaintiffs father, under which several items of property were mortgaged. On 25th August, 1895, one of these items, viz., item No. 6, was sold to the predecessor-in-title of the 7th defendant under Exhibit I, and he sold it to the predecessor-in-title of the 11th defendant under Exhibit II. On 15th August 1905, the mortgage-bond Exhibit A, was renewed by Exhibit B and item No. 6 was again included in the properties charged.

2. The present suit was filed on 8th August, 1917. The plaintiff contends that the charge over item No. 6 that he had obtained under Exhibit A was kept alive by Exhibit B and cannot be affected by the intermediate conveyance (under Exhibit I) behind his back without his consent. The appellant concedes this, but argues that the suit is barred by limitation.

3. If the only point that has to be decided is whether Exhibit B regarded only as an acknowledgment in 1905 of the debt due under Exhibit A, will save the suit from being barred against defendants Nos. 7 and 11, it must be decided against plaintiff. The observations in Lewirt v. Wilson (1886) 11 A.C. 639 ar