SAVITHRI KUNJAMMA Vs. NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole question to be decided in these two second appeals, filed by the plaintiffs in two suits, is whether the courts below were correct in dismissing the suits as barred by limitation. The decision rests on the controversy whether two documents pleaded contain acknowledgments saving limitation.

(2.) Both suits are for redemption of one-half share of the property covered by Ext. A1 mortgage of 16.9.1103. Acknowledgments pleaded are those contained in Ext. A2 assignment deed dated 17.7.1118 and Ext. A4 assignment dated 26.3.1959. Suits were filed on 13.10.1977.

(3.) In both the suits, the mortgagees did not contest because they are not in possession. Contest is by their lessees whose claim for fixity of tenure was found against by the Land Tribunal on the ground that they are only lessees of the mortgagees. The suits for redemption are far beyond the period of limitation and even if Ext. A2 is accepted as containing an acknowledgment, the suit will not be within time. Ext. A4 alone could save limitation. Respondents say that what is contained in Ext A4 is only descriptive and it cannot be accepted as acknowledgment They further say that Ext. A4 contain assignment of something more than the mortgage right and hence the period of limitation is only 12 years from that date under Art.61(b) of the Limitation Act corresponding to old Art.134.