Supreme Court of India

Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v Durga Prosad Chamaria

AIR 1961 SC 123619611 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
In a mortgage suit, the puisne mortgagee (respondent 1) relied on a letter from the mortgagor (respondent 2) to save limitation. Earlier the mortgagee had paid to stop a sale by the prior mortgagee. When the property was again advertised for sale, the mortgagor wrote that only about 70,000 was due to the prior mortgagee and asked him, as he was "interested", to "take up the whole". The trial judge held this was not an acknowledgment; the Court of Appeal held it was. The auction purchaser appealed.
Issue
Whether the letter was an acknowledgment of the mortgagee's rights under S.19 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908.
Held
Read in context, the "interest" referred to was that of respondent 1 as puisne mortgagee. Since the only subsisting relationship was that of mortgagor and mortgagee, and the letter acknowledged that jural relationship, it was an acknowledgment. Previous decisions on similar words are of limited help. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Principle
An acknowledgment must relate to a subsisting liability, indicate the jural relationship between the parties and be intended, expressly or impliedly, to admit it
Cite this

Facts

  • In a mortgage suit, the puisne mortgagee (respondent 1) relied on a letter from the mortgagor (respondent 2) to save limitation. Earlier the mortgagee had paid to stop a sale by the prior mortgagee. When the property was again advertised for sale, the mortgagor wrote that only about 70,000 was due to the prior mortgagee and asked him, as he was "interested", to "take up the whole". The trial judge held this was not an acknowledgment; the Court of Appeal held it was. The auction purchaser appealed.

Issue

  1. Whether the letter was an acknowledgment of the mortgagee's rights under S.19 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908.

Held

  • Read in context, the "interest" referred to was that of respondent 1 as puisne mortgagee. Since the only subsisting relationship was that of mortgagor and mortgagee, and the letter acknowledged that jural relationship, it was an acknowledgment. Previous decisions on similar words are of limited help. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio decidendi

An acknowledgment need not use particular words; it must admit a subsisting jural relationship, read in context.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Leading case on the requirements of an acknowledgment under S.18 of the 1963 Act.

Cite this

Citation

Khan Bahadur Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v Durga Prosad Chamaria AIR 1961 SC 1236

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/221873/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.