Harish Chandra vs Mt. Kastola Kunwar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1924 Supreme(All) 606

Harish Chandra – Appellant
Versus
Mt. Kastola Kunwar – Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. The mortgage was executed in the year 1889. Under the twelve year's limitation laid down by the Privy Council in Vasudeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai (1907) 30 Mad. 426, the suit would have been time barred. The Legislature, however, by Section 31 of the Limitation Act of 1908 extended limitation to a period of sixty years from the date when the money became payable or two years from the passing of the Act whichever period first expired. This period expired in the case of the present mortgage on 8th August, 1910. Before its expiry, on 24th. January 1910, the mortgagee made an admission of liability. He made a subsequent admission on 1st July, 1916, within twelve years of the former admission. The suit was filed on 2nd January, 1919. The question is whether the acknowledgment of 24th January, 1910, was a good acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act.

2. In our opinion it was Section 19 requires that the acknowledgment should have been made before the expiration of the period prescribed for the suit. The period prescribed for the suit did not expire till 8th August 1910. The application was made

Click Here to Read the rest of this document