Uppi Haji vs Mammavan

Relying on Mylapore Iyasawmy Vyapoory Moodliar v. Yeo Kay ILR 14 Cal. 801 the lower Appellate Court has held that the acknowledgment

in Exhibit A is not sufficient to remove the bar of limitation. Exhibit A was a will executed by the mortgagee, the predecessor in title of the

defendants. The testator therein described the plaint lands as ""demised to me on kanom."" The question is whether this is such an acknowledgment

of liability in respect of the property as to bring it within the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. There can be no doubt that it was an

acknowledgment by the testator that he then held the estate on kanom title. The defendant in this suit admitted that the mortgage of 1805 was true,

but relied on the Act of Limitations. He failed to show that there was any other mortgage to which the acknowledgment of the testator could have

referred. Under these circumstances the decision of the Munsif that the acknowledgment is sufficient must be upheld, unless we are prepared to

hold that the absence of the name of the mortgagor and of the date of the mortgage are sufficient to deprive the acknowledgment of validity.

Section 19 does not provide for the mention of the name of the mortgagor, but lays down that the acknowledgment is sufficient, though it omits to

specify the exact nature of the right. Under the Act of 1871 an acknowledgment of the mortgagor''s title or right of redemption was required, and if

it had been the intention of the Legislature that the name of the mortgagor should appear, the alteration was unnecessary. On the contrary the

intention of the Legislature appears to have been to adopt the principles laid down in the English cases, e.g., Stans field v. Hobson 16 Beav. 236;

affirmed on appeal 3 De G 620 and Anon 3 Atkyn''s Rep., 314 decided by Sir J. JEKYLL. As to the decision of the Privy Council on which the

Judge relies, we observe that the admission made by Bennet on which the plaintiff relied had no reference to the title set up by the plaintiff in the

suit, whereas in the present case the admission of the testator Kutiyatha that he held the property under a subsisting kanom amounted to an

acknowledgment of the title of the mortgagor, and that title is in the plaintiff. We reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the

Munsif with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.