Acknowledgment of liability on the date of registration of a document by an agent duly authorised in this behalf is a valid acknowledgment for the purpose of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

1. Defendants 2 and 15 to 18 are the appellants. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage which was executed on 28th October 1045 (M.E.) corresponding to 16th May 1869. The plaintiff claimed to be entitled to redeem the suit property from the defendants on payment of the proportionate mortgage money. It is also alleged that the liability under the mortgage had been acknowledged on 27th May 1079 M.E. The suit was claimed to be in time on the ground that the 60 years period expired only on 11th January 1964 which was a holiday. The suit itself was filed on the next working day after the said holidays. The learned District Munsif framed several issues of which the only material issue is regarding the plea of limitation. The learned District Munsif found that the executant of Ex. A.4 dated 11th October 1903 which was a registered (sic) sale deed, had acknowledged the mortgage, dated 28th October 1045 M.E., and that it was subsequently registered on 11th January 1904 (sic). In the view of the learned District Munsif, the effective date of acknowledgment was only 14th October 1903 and that as the suit had been filed beyond the period of 60 years from that date, the suit was time barred. He therefore dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the admission of executable before the registering authority on 11th January 1904 not only covered the execution of the document, but also amounted to an acknowledgment of the prior mortgage. In effect the learned Subordinate Judge held that for the purpose of computation of limitation, the date of registration namely, 11th January 1904, was the starting point of the 60 years period. As the suit had been filed after the intervening holidays, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiffs claim. It may be made clear that there were two other points, namely, that the mortgage did not relate to the suit property and that the defendants had perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession. On these points also he decided against the defendants.

2. In the present second appeal by defendants 2 and 15 to 18, the only point that is agitated is as to whether the suit was within time. There is no dispute that if the date of acknowledgement is the date on which the document itself was signed, then the suit would be beyond the period of limitation. If however, the date of registration is the date to be taken into account, then the suit will be within time. Therefore, the only point to be considered whether there is an acknowledgement of liability in the present case on the date of registration of the document, i.e., on 11th January 1904.

3. S. 18 of the Limitation Act runs as follows—

“Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.”

There is an explanation to this provision which to the extent material runs as follows:

“For the purposes of this section—(b) the word signed ‘means’ signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf. ..”

A Bench of this court in Rosayya v. Pitchayya 65 M.L.J. 380=38 L.W. 439 had to deal with a similar question. In that case, a person executed a mortgage bond and registered it on 9th September 1909 for himself and on behalf of a minor son as guardian. He made an endorsement on 18th July 1915, of some payment on the document, when the minor had not attained the majority. This document was presented for registration later on. While dealing with the question as to whether there was an acknowledgment on the date of registration, it was observed at page 383:

“When a document is presented for