PRANJIWANDAS PARSHOTTAMDAS Vs. BAI MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, an agriculturist, sued, under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agricultrists- Relief Act, to redeem and recover possession of the plaint lands from the defendants, alleging that he derived title from one Vallavram Devram who mortgaged the plaint lands with possession to Desai Vallavram Dullabhram on the 1st September 1826 for Rs. 51. The plaintiff s suit was dismissed in the trial Court on the ground that his right to redeem was barred by limitation. The plaintiff relied upon certain acknowledgments by the mortgagee of his liability to be redeemed which were made by him in 1865 and 1876 and by his widow in 1882. Both Courts have held Mackod that these are not acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is, therefore, necessary to consider what the acknowledgments relied upon by the plaintiff are.

(2.) In 1865, the Government directed an inquiry with regard to the nature of inam lands with the result that Sanads were issued to the holders. The Sanad No. 838 was issued to Desai Dayaram Vallabhram on the 8th of January 1865. Exhibit 8 is a register book of the giving of Sanads of Inam lands for the Samyat year 1921 in this particular village. The register gives the date of the Sanad in a column which is reserved for the date. The 2nd column is for the name of the person in whose name the Sanad is given and his residence. In that column is this entry :- "Desai Dayaram Vallabhram of Hansot mortgagee from Anandrao and Hardeo. sons of Bhana Vallabh." Then follows a description of the lands and the amount to be recovered by Government. In the last column is the signature of Desai Dayaram Vallabhram in his own handwriting.

(3.) Exhibit 9 is again a register of Sanads, and, on the 10th February 1876, Desai Dayaram Vallabhram signed the register in which he is described as mortgagee of the lands in respect of which a Sanad was given, and again on the 18th of October 1882 Desai Dayaram s widow signed the register when a new Sanad was issued to her. It is urged for the plaintiff that these are acknowledgments by the mortgagee that he was the mortgagee of the plaint lands, and that, therefore, he admitted his liability to be redeemed by the mortgagor. On the other hand it is urged that these are merely receipts for a document, and that no admission of liability can be extracted from the fact that the mortgagee simply signed the register. Now I think that the whole entry in the register must be looked at, and it is fair to presume that Desai Dayaram signed the register I with full knowledge of its contents, and knew that he was describes as mortgagee of the suit lands, and knew that he was being given a Sanad by Government because he was a mortgagee. Admittedly, if Desai Dayaram had only signed a receipt on a loose piece of paper acknowledging that he received the Sanad, the case might be a very different one. But we have got to and I think we are bound to hold that the registers bearing the signatures of Desai Dayaram Vallabhram and his widow were acknowledgments of the mortgagee s liability to be redeemed by the mortgagor of the suit lands.