Acknowledgment must relate to subsisting liability.

1. Thedefendants 1 and 2 who suffered decree, have filed this Second appeal.

2. The suit properties, namely, plaint 'A' schedule properties, originally belonged to one Perumal Kunjirayumman. He died and his entire rights devolved on his 3 sons, namely, defendants 2 and 3 and the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he is entitled to one third share in the 'A' schedule property. Item No.1 in 'A' schedule properties was the subject matter of a prior mortgage with the 1st defendant. Subsequently, the same was renewed under the mortgage deed dated 29.1.1951 marked as Ex.A1. Even item No.2 which is also described as 'B' schedule property, was the subject matter of prior mortgage in favour of a stranger. The said mortgage was executed by Perumal Kunjirayumman and his brother Chidambaranathan on 29.10.1912. Under Ex.A1, it is stated that that mortgage has to be redeemed from the prior mortgagee, as the mortgagee subsequently assigned his entire mortgage right in respect of plaint 'B' schedule property in favour of one Sevithiyan Nadar, son of Anthony. The said Sevithiyan Nadar again assigned his mortgaged right in favour of the 2nd defendant in the suit. The 2nd defendant released one half of the mortgaged right which he got under the mortgage, as stated above, in favour of one Devasahayam Nadar on 9.6.1971, marked as Ex.A6. So the 2nd defendant has got subsisting mortgage right only in respect of the right in plaint 'B' schedule property, i.e., in item No.2 of 'A' schedule property. The 2nd defendant is none other than the husband of the 1st defendant. Item No.3 of 'A' schedule property was also mortgaged under Ex.A1 in favour of 1st defendant.

3. From the above it is clear that the 1st defendant is in possession of the 'A' schedule property, namely, item Nos.1 and 3 on the basis of Ex.A1, and defendants 1 and 2 are in possession of item No.2 of 'A' schedule property, under the mortgage deed dated 29.1.51. Since the plaintiff is entitled to redeem ?3 share of the suit properties, he filed the suit. He also claimed that he is an agriculturist and also a debtor as defined under Act 4 of 1938 and Act 40 of 1979. On that basis the plaintiff claimed that he is entitled to redeem possession without payment of any mortgage amount.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement. According to the 1st defendant she has taken possession of item No.1 of 'A' schedule properties. According to the 1st defendant, she did not take any mortgage deed dated 29.1.1951. The mortgage was brought into existence behind her back. According to her, no possession or right was passed under the said mortgage to the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant claims that she got possession of item No.1 of 'A' schedule property and other properties under mortgage deed dated 5.10.1118, i.e., marked as Ex.A2, and so the said mortgage got time barred, and the 1st defendant got title in the said property. The mortgage right with respect to 'B' schedule property had devolved on the 2nd defendant by subsequent devolution and the said mortgage has become time barred and thereby the 2nd defendant got absolute title due to the same. The 1st defendant claims that she is not in possession over 'B' schedule property. Ultimately it was stated that the suit is barred by limitation, as there was no acknowledgment in the documents of the years 1118 and 1121, and in the release deed dated 9.6.1971. The recitals in those documents do not constitute the acknowledgment. It is stated that since the plaintiff has no right to recover the property, the question of application of Act 14 of 1938 and Act 40 of 1979 does not arise for consideration. On the basis of the above pleadings defendants 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial court passed a preliminary decree as prayed for. The defendants 1 and 2 filed Appeal in A.S.No.26 of 1990 on the file of Sub-Court, Kuzhithurai. Learned Sub-Judge also confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence this Second