A mere statement expressing a jural relationship between the parties does not constitute an acknowledgement for the purpose of extending the limitation period for redemption. The statement must show that it was made with the intention of admitting such jural relationship subsisting at the time it was made.

N.K. Kapoor, J. - This is unsuccessful plaintiffs regular second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed a suit for possession by means of redemption. According to the plaintiff, one Raghunath son of Khub Ram, father of the plaintiff, and Sampat, her uncle, were owners in possession of a shop detailed in para No. 1 of the plaint. They mortgaged the shop in favour of one Pehlad on 18.3.1922 for a sum of Rs. 4,000/-. On the death of Sampat, his rights devolved upon Raghunath who created an additional mortgage in favour of Pehlad on 3.7.1922. On the death of Pehlad, his rights were inherited by his daughter Shanti. Subsequently, in a dispute between Shanti and Kasturi, sister of Pehlad, the mortgagee rights were acquired by Kasturi Devi who gifted her right to her son Risal Singh vide gift deed dated 18.5.1949. On 17.4.1953 Risal Singh sold the property to defendant No. 1 vide registered sale deed. The plaintiff thus claiming herself to be sole heir of Raghunath mertgagor filed the present suit for redemption of the property.

3. Defendant No. 2 in his written statement alleged that the name of the plaintiff is Kasturi and not Chandarpati. According to the defendant, she is the daughter of Raghunath and so has no locus standi to file the present suit. The suit is barred by limitation as well. It was further averred that defendant No. 2 has become absolute owner of the property as the suit is not within limitation nor the same is maintainable in the present form.

4. Defendant No. 1 too raised similar pleas. It was stated that Rishal Singh is not a necessary party. It was further stated that he has acquired ownership right by adverse possession because the sale in his favour was on 17.4.1953 and ever since then he is in possession of the property as owner thereof.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, a number of issues were framed. The parties led evidence and finally the trial Court came to the conclusion that in view of its finding on issue No. 5 i.e. did the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest acknowledge the factum of mortgage etc. as alleged in paragraph No. 9 of the plaintiff, if so, to what effect ? The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

6. The appellate Court again examined this material issue in the light of evidence led but found no ground to differ with the findings of the trial Court and so dismissed the appeal.

7. The precise point which has again been canvassed is whether the sale of mortgage right amounts to acknowledgement so as to save limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act (for short the Act) ? The facts as have been noticed by the Courts below are that the property in dispute earlier belonged to one Raghunath and Sampat. They jointly created a mortgage in favour of Pehlad by registered mortgage deed dated 18.3.1922 (Exhibit P-7). On the death of Sampat, the property devolved upon Raghunath who thereafter created a second mortgage vide Exhibit P-8 on 3.7.1922. Smt. Chandarpati claiming herself to be daughter of Raghunath filed the present suit for redemption of the shop relying upon three different acknowledgements i.e. (i) gift deed Exhibit P-2 executed by Smt. Kasturi in favour of her son Risal Singh, defendant No. 1 on 18.5.1949; (ii) admission contained in written statement of Risal Singh, Exhibit P-4, dated 15.6.1951; and (iii) admission of Risal Singh in conveyance deed Exhibit P-1 dated 17.4.1953 in favour of Maman Chand. Since Maman Chand was a transferee of mortgagee rights only, the plaintiff had right to redeem the same. Issue No. 5 is the material issue the findings of which are being challenged in the present appeal. Issue No. 5 reads as under :-

"Did the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest acknowledge the factum of mortgage etc. as alleged in paragraph No. 9 of the plaint ? It so, to what effect ? OPD

The two mortgage deeds are dated 18.3.1922 (Exhibit P-7) and 3.7.1922 (Exhibit P-8). To redeem these mortgages, a suit could be filed within a period of 30 years in terms of Art