JUDGMENT
D. Sreedevi, J.
1. This second Appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in A.S.No. 109 of 1983 of the District Court, Alappuzha, which was filed against the decree and judgment in O.S. No. 1070 of 1971 of the Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala. The plaintiffs before the trial court are the appellants herein and the defendant is the respondent. During the pendency of this appeal the third appellant died and appellants 1,2,4 and 5 were recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased third appellant. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the above suit for redemption. The brief facts for the purpose of this appeal are the following: The plaint schedule property originally belonged to Kannanthara Makkar. He had executed a mortgage in favour of Sankaran Chettiar, the father of the defendant. Sankaran Chettiar was the kamavan of the family. Sankaran Chettiar acquired the jenmom right also. This Court in A.S. No. 58 of 1982 held that Sankaran Chettiar had only a mortgage right and the right of redemption belongs to his family. As per the partition in the family the right of redemption was allotted to the plaintiff’s sakha. Sankaran Chettiar had acknowledged the mortgage transaction. The mortgage right devolved on the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for redemption.
2. The defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable as it is barred by the law of limitation. The trial court after taking evidence dismissed
the suit holding that the suit is barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment the plaintiffs filed the above appeal before the District Court, Alappuzha. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the decree and judgment of the trial court. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
3. The substantial question of law involved in this case is whether the right of redemption is barred by limitation. At the time of hearing Mr. P.N. Krishnankutty Achan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding of the learned District Judge on the question of limitation is not correct as there is acknowledgement of liability by the mortgagee under Exts. A1, B2 and B3 documents. It is submitted that the courts below have misread and misinterpreted the said documents which relates to acknowledgement of liability by the mortgagee.
4. Ext. B1 is the mortgage of the year 1097 M.E. The mortgage deed was executed for a period of six years. The period of limitation for redemption was 50 years as per the Travancore Limitation Act. As per the Limitation Act, 1963 the period of limitation is 30 years. S. 30 of the Limitation Act provides that any suit for which the period of limitation is shorter than the period of institution under the Limitation Act 1908 may be instituted within a period of 7 years next after the commencement of the 1963 Act or within a period prescribed for such suit by the Limitation Act, 1908 whichever period expires earlier. The Limitation Act, 1963 came into force on 1.4.1964. The suit for redemption was filed only on 3.12.1971. Prima facie it is beyond the period of limitation. So, the plaintiffs have to establish that there is acknowledgement of liability by the mortgagee and as such the suit is not barred. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Exts. A1, B2 and B3 documents to prove that there was acknowledgement of liability. Ext. Al is a copy of the judgment in A.S. No. 58 of 1962. It was an appeal preferred against the decision of the Sub Court, Alappuzha, in O.S.No. 204 of 1957. This suit was filed against Sankaran Chettiar for maintenance by the members of the tharavad as he was the karnavan. The plaint schedule item was one of the items included in O.S. No. 204 of 1957. The decree in A.S. No. 58 of 1962 was a compromise decree. This decree nowhere states that Sankaran Chettiar had acknowledged the liability under the mortgage. Therefore, Ext. Al has nothing to do with the acknowledgement of liability.
5. The next document is Ext. B2 which is an assignment deed executed by Sankaran Chettiar in favour of Gomathi Amma. On the date of Ext. B2 Sankaran Chettiar had only a mortgage right. This Court in Savithri Kunjamma v. Narayanan (1989 (2) KLT 628) held that under S. 18 corresponding to old S. 19 of the Limitation Act 1908 what is required is that before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application, there must be an acknowledgement of liability in respect of the property or right. Then only a fresh period of limitation shall be computed. There
must be an admission of the subsisting jural relationship with the intention of admitting the same. It also held that a mere admission of jural relationship is not sufficient and that a statement in order to constitute acknowledgement must be in relation to the liability or the right or the property claimed and that such a statement must be shown to have been made with a consciousness and an intention of admitting such a right or A liability. Admission of the jural relationship of mortgagor or mortgagee is not by itself sufficient to constitute an acknowledgement within the meaning of the S. 18 of the Limitation Act. In Ext. B2 assignment deed he has referred to the mortgage right and conveyed only that right under the document. In this document he has admitted that he is holding the property under the mortgage deed executed in his favour. The Apex
Court in Tilak Ram v. Nathu (AIR 1967 SC 935) held that the statements made in the assignment deed that the assignor is holding the property under the mortgage does not amount to acknowledgement as there is nothing in the document to show that the said assignment was made with the intention of admitting the jural relationship with the mortgagor. In Ext. B2 there is no acknowledgement of liability to be redeemed. Therefore Ext. B2 also cannot be considered to be an acknowledgement of liability. Another document relied on is Ext. B3 sale deed executed by Pathumma in favour of Sankaran Chettiar. Pathumma had equity of redemption right over the property. That document was executed in favour of Sankaran Chettiar. There is nothing to show that he has accepted the document. He was not a signatory to the document. Under S. 18 of the Limitation Act the acknowledgement must be in writing and signed by the person making the acknowledgement. Therefore Ext. B3 also cannot be considered to be acknowledgement of liability. The Apex Court in Reet Mohinder Singh Sekhon v. Mohinder Parkash (AIR 1989 SC 1775) held that a mere narration of the previous mortgage that had been created on the property is not sufficient for acknowledgement of liability. The words must spell out a clear intention that the moneys due under the mortgage still remained unpaid and also that the mortgagor had a subsisting right of redemption which could be enforced against the mortgagee. Therefore, it can be seen that the documents relied on by the appellants do not help the appellants to prove that there was acknowledgement of liability by the mortgagee. The learned District Judge upholding the finding of the trial court held that the suit is barred by limitation after correctly interpreting the provision of law. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decree and judgment of the court below.
6. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed.