PATEL KEMPEGOWDA Vs. CHANNAVEERIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal filed by the defendant against the decision of the District Judge of Mysore in R.A. No. 120 of 1952-53. The suit is for recovery of Rs. 3000/- principal and Rs. 3000/- interest, claimed as due on a registered hypothecation bond dated 4-3-1927. The learned Sub-Judge tried the case as O.S. No. 27/50-51 and dismissed the suit as being barred by limitation. On other material issues the Courts below have concurrently found against the defendants. As against this decision the legal representatives of the plaintiff, (Original plaintiff having died by that time) took up the matter in appeal to the Court of the District Judge, Mysore. The learned District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the sum claimed in the suit. The defendants have come up in Second Appeal. As the appeal is governed by Section 100 of the Mysore C.P.C., the appellants are entitled to canvass the correctness of the decision on questions of facts as well, as the judgment appealed against is a reversing one. The only question for consideration in this Second Appeal is one of limitation.

(2.) The material contentions raised by the learned advocate appearing for the defendants are:

(3.) On the other hand the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents questions the correctness of the conclusions of the Courts below in arriving at the finding that the endorsement dated 26-2-1943 does not save the bar of limitation. His contention is that when any one of the co-mortgagors make the payment and acknowledges the same, then the limitation is saved by Section 20 (1) of the Limitation Act. It is necessary to examine those contentions in detail.