The applicability of limitation laws hinges on where the suit is filed, irrespective of where the contract was formed.

1. These appeals are from the judgment of Veeraswami, J., reversing the concurring judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant for recovery of monies due under certain transactions to be referred to hereafter. The respondents are of Indian domicile and they form members of a joint Hindu family with their home in Ramanathapuram District, They had a business at Ohne in Pegu District in Burma and in respect of two sums of Rs.10,000 each borrowed from the appellants in the above appeals, they through the first respondent who was the Kartha of the family executed on 25-10-1937 two mortgages securing certain immovable properties belonging to them and situate in that country. Thu mortgage documents were duly registered in accordance with the law of Burma and they were kept alive by periodical acknowledgments made by the manager for the time being of the family. Such acknowledgments were made on 28-5-1940, 12-6-1941, 31-3-1947 and 28-8-1949.
Due to the unsettled conditions in that country consequent on the Japanese invasion the Civil Courts were deemed to be closer under the Burma Emergency Act 11 of 1943 from 8-12-1941 to 31-3-1947. That apart, the acknowledgments to which we have made reference just now would be sufficient under the law prevailing in that country to keep alive the debts secured by the mortgages. It can, therefore, be little doubt that the liability of the respondents to pay back the amounts borrowed was alive xx xx enforceable, under the law of Burma, on 30-8-1955.

2. On that date the appellants instituted two xx xx out of which these appeals arise claiming that the respondents were personally liable to pay the amounts in the country. The debts were no doubt in origin secured of the properties situate in Burma. It is conceded that the debts were payable at that place and that the cause debts also arose therein.

3. The creditors have now given up their security they have sought personal relief against the respondent in a court in this country within the limits of whose xx xx diction the debtors reside or carry on business. This will be entitled to do. Vide the decision, Muthukann Andappa , ILR (1955) Mad. 116 : (S) (AIR 1955 Mad. xx xx (FB).

4. The sole ground on which the suits were contend related to limitation. It will be noticed that more than three years had clapsed between the second and the xx xx acknowledgments of liability referred to above. So xx xx between the date of the last of the acknowledgment of the date on which the suit was filed even. If one were exclude the period between 5-12-1943 and 1-7-1955 the ground that the respondents are agriculturists in the State. If, therefore, the debt had become barred by xx xx 1944 or by 1952 by applying the three year rule of xx xx tion contained in Art.115 of the Limitation Act, xx xx quent acknowledgment on 31-3-1947 or any suspension xx xx cause of action by a statute will not have the effect reviving the debt.

5. To get over the difficulty the appellants place that as the claim was based on registered instrument mortgages executed in Burma, Art.116 of the Limitation Act would apply and that that would entitle them xx xx six year period of limitation. Alternatively, it was xx xx that S.13 of the Limitation Act will save the claim xx xx the bar of limitation.

6. The courts below holding that the appropriate vision of the Limitation Act applicable would be Art.xx xx decreed the suit claim. That view has not been accept by Veeraswami, J. in second appeal. The learn xx xx held that the claim could not be regarded as being xx xx on a regist