CHACKO Vs. THUPPAN NARABOORIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the 10th defendant in O.S. No. 262 of 1120 of the Court of the District Munsiff, Moovattupuzha, and his contention is that the suit is barred by limitation.

(2.) The suit is based on a chitty security bond and it is common ground that the time began to run from 25.12.1100 and that the plaint filed on 9.6.1120 was clearly out of time but for certain acknowledgments made by the first defendant, the executant of the security bond. It is also agreed that the first defendant had parted with all his rights in respect of the items in which the 10th defendant is interested prior to all the acknowledgments that could possibly be pressed into service for the purpose of saving limitation.

(3.) The only question, therefore, is whether the fact that the first defendant had still the equity of redemption over some of the items covered by the security bond is sufficient to make his acknowledgment effective as far as the items in which he was no longer interested on the date of the acknowledgment are concerned. The identical question was answered in the negative by their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1942 PC 67 . That the sale effected in that case was not of all the items included in the mortgage but only of some of them is clear from the words underlined by us in the following extract from Lord Atkin's judgment:-