An entry in a mutation register acknowledging a mortgage can constitute an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to extend the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. This second appeal has been filed by Narinder Singh, Sukhdarshan Singh and Shrimati Jaswant Kaur alias Harbans Kaur against the judgment and decree of the Addl. District Judge, Faridkot dated 22nd July, 1970 affirming those of the subordinate Judge Ist Class, Faridkot for redemption of the property of the plaintiffs on payment of Rupees 1,244/-.

2. Briefly, the case of the plaintiffs is that Boor Singh mortgaged the land in dispute with Partap Singh for a sum of Rs. 1,244/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 8th of Sawan, 1967 B.K. The mutation of the mortgage was attested on 14th Phagan, 1972 B.K. It is further pleaded that if the mortgage be held to have been created earlier on Bhadon Shudi 9, 1961 B.K., vide entry in the bahi, the suit was within limitation, because of the acknowledgment of the mortgagee contained in the mutation dated 14th Phagan, 1972 B.K. Consequently, they prayed that the decree for redemption be passed in their favour regarding the property on payment of Rupees 1,244/-.

3. The suit was contested by defendants numbers 2 and 3 who inter alia pleaded that they were not the heirs of Boor Singh mortgagor. They further pleaded that the mortgage was effected on Bhadon Shudi 9, 1961 B.K. vide bahi entry and thus, the suit was barred by limitation. They denied that any acknowledgment was made by Partap Singh, their predecessor-in-interest.

4. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 8 were the heirs of Boor Singh mortgagor and that the suit was within limitation. Consequently, it decreed the suit. Narinder Singh etc., above named appellants, went up in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot who affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. They have now come up in second appeal to this Court.

5. It is vehemently contended by Shri Puri that the entry dated Phagan 14, 1972 B.K. in the mutation does not amount to an acknowledgment as contemplated by Sec.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (referred to as the Act). In support of his contention, he placed reliance on Shah Gur Saran V/s. Shib Singh, AIR 1943 All 393 (FB) and Tilak Ram V/s. Nathu, AIR 1967 SC 935.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for a considerable length, but regret my inability to accept the contention. There is no controversy about the facts of the case. Even if it be assumed that the mortgage was effected by Boor Singh in favour of Partap Singh vide Bahi entry dated Bhadon Shudi 9, 1961 B.K., the mortgagee made an acknowledgment regarding the mortgage in the mutation Ex.P2. The mutation was entered at the instance of Partap Singh mortgagee. It is stated therein that Partap Singh mortgagee mentioned that Boor Singh mortgaged with possession his land measuring 51 Bighas 14 Biswas for a sum of Rs. 1,244/- vide Registry Nizamat Dewani, with him. The land revenue was paid by him. It was admitted by the mortgagor also. The above entry is signed by the Patwari, the mortgagee and bears the thumb-impression of the mortgagor. The question is, whether the abovesaid entry amounts to acknowledgment, or not.

7. Section 18 of the Act inter alia provides that where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment 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. An explanation has been added to it which says that for the purposes of the section, an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-