BIND BASNI PRASAD, J.:- This is a mortgagors petition in revision from the judgment, dated 15th May 1948, passed by the learned District Judge of Gorakhpur upholding the judgment dated 15th April 1946, given by the learned Sub-divisional Officer of Deoria. It arises out of proceedings under S.12, U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. The relevant facts are as follows :

On Jeth Sudi 15, 1881 A.D. a usufructuary mortgage in respect of an agricultural plot was made by the applicants ancestors to the opposite parties predecessors. On 1st March 1944, that is to say, more than sixty years after the date of the mortgage, the application for redemption was filed. The applicant contended that in the year 1911, there was an acknowledgment of the mortgage and so the case was saved from the operation of the bar of limitation. It was further contended that according to the provisions of S.9, U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, there was a fresh start of limitation when that Act came into force, viz., on 1st January 1941. The trial Court held that the case was barred by limitation and learned District Judge upheld that order. The mortgagor, therefore, comes in revision.

2. The first question is whether there was an acknowledgment within the meaning of S.19, Limitation Act. It appears that in 1911 there was a partition suit among the members of the mortgagee family, being suit No.403 of 1911 in the Court of the Munsif of Deoria. In the course of that partition suit a compromise was arrived at and inter alia there was the following condition in it :

"Whatever land is in possession of the plaintiffs under the mortgage deed dated Jeth Sudi 15, 1288 Fasli executed by Gur Dutt, father of Jhinguri and Dubri, mortgagors, shall continue to remain in possession of the plaintiffs."

The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that this amounts to an acknowledgment under S.19, Limitation Act.

That section provides :

"Where, before the expiration of the period prescribed 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 some person through whom he derives title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed."

3. Explanation I provides, inter alia, that it is not necessary that the acknowledgment should be addressed to the person who seeks to take benefit of it under S.19. Nevertheless, an acknowledgment of liability necessarily implies a conscious acknowledgment of liability. Hence in considering whether certain words amount to an acknowledgment of liability it must be seen whether at the time of writing them the writer had in his mind the question as to his liability or whether he was thinking of and referring to some other matter. If the mention of the mortgaged property in the deed of compromise was only fort the purpose of description of the property, as we think it was, and not with the idea of acknowledging the liability of redemption, then in our view it would not amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of that word as used in S.19, Limitation Act.

4. There are some decided cases bearing on this point : In Khiali Ram v. Taik Ram, AIR 1916 All 201, a Dakhalnama contained a description of the property purchased by the defendants predecessor and his signature thereon and in that description there was a reference to the mortgage. It was held that the Dakhalnama did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of S.19, Limitation Act and the mention of the mortgage was merely for the purpose of description of the property. In Mt. Sham Devi v. Bhagwant Dayal, AIR 1925 All 353, there was a sale deed in which the property purchased was described as subject to a mortgage and only the mortgagee rights were sold. It was held that all that the vendor admitted was that he came into possession of the