1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Kistna at Masulipatam, in A.S No. 327 of 1920, preferred against the order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ellore, in E.P. No. 92 of 1919, in O.S. No. 80 of 1910.
2. The sole point for determination in this appeal is whether the learned District Judge has correctly held that the statement made by the appellant Exhibit A, amounted to an acknowledgment of liability, within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, so as to save the bar of limitation.
3. The statement is as follows:
The debt due to the creditor, K. Basava Reddi was a mortgage-debt. It ripened into a decree. It was in O.S. No. 80 of 1910, on the file of the Ellore Sub-Court. He gave me a letter that ha would proceed against the mortgaged properties only and would not proceed against my person.4. At the end of the same statement, he says 'These debts are due by me along with others, but they wers paid by me alone. I therefore owe no debts to any of my creditors'.
5. There can be no doubt that this must mean that the debt is due to K Basava Reddi; but in as much as he has undertaken to satisfy it by proceeding against the mortgaged properties only, there is no claim against the person of the appellant. And this is the sense in which it has been taken by the learned Subordinate Judge and the learned District Judge. I agree with them that the deposition is a clear admission that the appellant was in debt to the plaintiff.
6. The appellant has cited three cases all of which can be distinguished. Firstly, Hingan Lal v. Mansa Ram (1896) 18 All. 384. There the statement relied upon was merely the fact that the judgment-debtor bad been declared liable to pay a certain sum of money by a certain decree. There was no statement that the debt was due. So too in Muthukumara Mudaliar v. Chockalinga Mudaliar 1923 Mad. 634 the statement is:
I am the 3rd defendant, land the 2nd defendant purchased some land from the 1st defendant. For the balanoe of prioe due to her, Ex. A was executed.7. It is not stated that any debt under Exhibit A was still due.
8. And lastly in Kandasami Reddi v. Suppammal 1922 Mad. 104, the passage runs thus:
The first plaintiff and his brother, the second plaintiff, namely, Ruppa Reddy, jointly executed to him (first defendant) on the said date a hypothecation deed for Rs. 200, after deducting the sums paid towards the said othi amount of Rs. 275. Along with the said deed, the deed of othi executed in the year 1888, and the othi deed of 1907 were also given to the first defendant.9. Again there is no admission that any debt under these deed's was due.
10. The rulings lay down that each ease is to be considered on its merits and having regard to the exact language used, I have no doubt that in this case, there is an acknowledgment of debt and hence no bar of limitation.
11. The appeal is dismissed with costs.