Case: Tilak Ram &amp; Others Vs. Nathu &amp; Others

the section, this Court stated that an acknowledgment may be sufficient by reason of Explanation 1 even if it omits to specify the exact nature of the right. Nevertheless, the statement on which a plea of acknowledgment is based must relate to a subsisting liability. The words used in the acknowledgment must indicate the jural relationship between the parties and it must appear that such a statement is made with the intention of admitting that jural relationship. Such an intention, no doubt, can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission and need not be in express words. It was then observed:"If the statement is fairly clear then the intention to admit the jural relationship may be implied from it. The admission in question need not be express but must be made in circumstances and in words from which the Court can reasonably infer that the person making the admission intended to refer to a subsisting liability as at the date of the statement."The Court also observed that stated generally the Courts leaned in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though that would not mean that where no admission was made one should be inferred or where a statement was made clearly without intending to admit the existence of jural relationship such as intention would be fastened on the maker of the statement by an involved or a far-fetched process of reasoning. Similarly, while dealing with an admission of a debt, Fry L. J. in Green v. Humphreys, (1884) 26 Ch D 474 at p. 481, observed that an acknowledgment would be an admission by the writer that there was a debt owing by him either to the receiver of the letter or to some other person on whose behalf the letter was received but that it was not enough that he referred to a debt as being due from somebody. In order to take the case out of the statute there must, upon a fair construction of the letter read by the light of the surrounding circumstances, be an admission that the writer owed the debt.10. The right of redemption no doubt is of the essence of and inherent in a transaction of mortgage. But the statement in question must relate to the subsisting liability or the right claimed. Where the statement is relied on as expressing jural relationship it must show that it was made with the intention of admitting such jural relationship subsisting at the time when it was made. It follows that where a statement setting out jural relationship is made clearly without intending to admit its existence an intention to admit cannot be imposed on its maker by an involved or a far-fetched process of reasoning.11. Do the statements relied on admit or acknowledge subsisting mortgages and the right to redeem or the liability of the maker thereof to be redeemed ? Exhibit E, dated April 8, 1902 is the mortgage deed executed by Parmeshwardas in favour of Badam for Rs. 200. The document refers only to one out of the said seven mortgages. Though it refers to the mortgage in favour of Dharamdas it does so for the purpose of describing the interest Parmeshwardas was mortgaging in favour of Badam and of his own right of redeeming the mortgage. The said mortgage thus is set out for showing the nature of the interest which he was mortgaging as security for the said debt of Rs. 200 rather than for admitting the mortgage of 1861 as a subsisting mortgage. The document thus cannot he said to be one made with the intention of admitting the jural relationship between him as the successor-in-title of Dharamdas and the successors-in-title of the said Teja. The second document Ex. X, dated August 16, 1902 was made between Parmeshwardas on the one hand and Hira Singh and others on the other and was a sale of his mortgage rights. The deed recites the mortgages executed by the said Teja in favour of Dharamdas, the fact of Parmeshwardas being in possession as Dharamdass successor-in-title, the deed of mortgage, dated April 8, 1902 (Ex. E) and the fact that he was by this deed selling his mortgage rights for Rs. 1,290. These statements were clearly made for the purpose of describing his own rights which he was selling under this deed. But there is nothing in this document to show that he referred to the said mortgages with the intention of admitting his jural relationship with his mortgagors and, therefore, of his subsisting liability as the mortgagee thereunder of being redeemed. The third document Ex. P. 15 is the plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1903. Here again the statement as to Parmeshwardas having sold his mortgage rights to the plaintiffs was made with a view to trace their own rights as against the defendants and not with any consciousness or intention to admit the jural relationship between them or to admit the fact of the said mortgages being subsisting at the time when the plaint was filed. The statement in the plaint was made not in relation to the said mortgages but with reference to their own rights under the said deed of sale of mortgage rights in their favour. The fourth document is the written statement in Suit No. 50 of 1903 where the right of the plaintiffs in that suit to redeem has been specifically denied. The statement, therefore, cannot be, availed of as an acknowledgment of a subsisting jural relationship or of a subsisting right and a corresponding liability of being redeemed.12. In the light of the tests laid down in Khan Bahadur Mazdas case, (1962) 1 SCR 140 : (AIR 1961 SC 1236 ) (Supra) none of these statements can be regarded as acknowledgment within the meaning of S. 19. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to treat these statements or any of them as acknowledgments and was equally right in its conclusion that the appellants suit was barred by limitation.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]5. Before we proceed to consider these contentions we may mention that none of the statements relied on by the appellants expressly admitted the appellants right to redeem or the liability of the respondents and theirto be redeemed. What these statements did was only to mention without anything more the fact of jural relationship of mortgagor andis thus a clear divergence of opinion not only amongst the different High Courts but also sometimes in the same HighE, dated April 8, 1902 is the mortgage deed executed by Parmeshwardas in favour of Badam for Rs. 200. The document refers only to one out of the said seven mortgages. Though it refers to the mortgage in favour of Dharamdas it does so for the purpose of describing the interest Parmeshwardas was mortgaging in favour of Badam and of his own right of redeeming the mortgage. The said mortgage thus is set out for showing the nature of the interest which he was mortgaging as security for the said debt of Rs. 200 rather than for admitting the mortgage of 1861 as a subsisting mortgage. The document thus cannot he said to be one made with the intention of admitting the jural relationship between him as theof Dharamdas and theof the said Teja. The second document Ex. X, dated August 16, 1902 was made between Parmeshwardas on the one hand and Hira Singh and others on the other and was a sale of his mortgage rights. The deed recites the mortgages executed by the said Teja in favour of Dharamdas, the fact of Parmeshwardas being in possession as Dharamdassthe deed of mortgage, dated April 8, 1902 (Ex. E) and the fact that he was by this deed selling his mortgage rights for Rs. 1,290. These statements were clearly made for the purpose of describing his own rights which he was selling under this deed. But there is nothing in this document to show that he referred to the said mortgages with the intention of admitting his jural relationship with his mortgagors and, therefore, of his subsisting liability as the mortgagee thereunder of being redeemed. The third document Ex. P. 15 is the plaint in Suit No. 31 of 1903. Here again the statement as to Parmeshwardas having sold his mortgage rights to the plaintiffs was made with a view to trace their own rights as against the defendants and not with any consciousness or intention to admit the jural relationship between them or to admit the fact of the said mortgages being subsisting at the time when the plaint was filed. The statement in the plaint was made not in relation to the said mortgages but with reference to their own rights under the said deed of sale of mortgage rights in their favour. The fourth document is the written statement in Suit No. 50 of 1903 where the right of the plaintiffs in that suit to redeem has been specifically denied. The statement, therefore, cannot be, availed of as an acknowledgment of a subsisting jural relationship or of a subsisting right and a corresponding liability of being redeemed.12. In the light of the tests laid down in Khan Bahadur Mazdas case, (1962) 1 SCR 140  : (AIR 1961 SC 1236  ) (Supra) none of these statements can be regarded as acknowledgment within the meaning of S. 19. The High Court, therefore, was right in refusing to treat these statements or any of them as acknowledgments and was equally right in its conclusion that the appellants suit was barred by limitation.