1. This appeal arises out of a suit for redemption of the plaintiffs' share in a certain property mortgaged in the year 1835. It appears that in the year 1890 the heirs of one of the mortgagors brought a suit for redemption against the heirs of the mortgagees and to that suit they impleaded as defendants the present plaintiffs, who are the heirs of the remaining mortgagors. The present suit was brought in the year 1918 by the plaintiffs to redeem their share of the property from the defendants, the heirs of the co-mortgagors on payment of the proportionate amount due from the plaintiffs. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the suit was barred by time, as it had been brought more than sixty years after the date of the mortgage. It is, no doubt, true that limitation commenced to run from the date of the mortgage and unless it can be shown that there was some acknowledgment , of the plaintiffs' right within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit was barred by time. The mere fact that the defendants redeemed the Mortgaged property from the mortgagees in the year 1830 would not give a fresh start to the limitation. This is clear from the Full Bench ruling of this Court in Ashfaq Ahmad v. Wazir Ali 11 A. 423 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 698. The Courts below have, however, following the case of Baleshwar v. Ram Deo 24 Ind. Cas. 104 : 12 A.L.J. 674 : 36 A. 408, held that certain statements made in the plaint of 1890 by the defendants appellants, who were the plaintiffs, admitting the existence of the right of the present plaintiffs to redeem the property, were sufficient to bring the present suit within time, as a fresh period of limitation commenced to run from the date of the acknowledgment, which was made in 1890. We cannot distinguish this case on which the Courts below have relied from the present ease. We are bound to follow it and we accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.