Karthiyayani Amma Ambika Kumari Amma v. Kulapra Sree Mahadevar Devaswom Trust and Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934 SA.No. 178 of 2001 (D) ---------------------AS.67/1998 of DISTRICT COURT,KOLLAM OS.215/1983 of ADDL.MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM APPELLANT(S)/3RD RESPONDENT/3RD DEFENDANT: ------------ KARTHIYAYANI AMMA AMBIKA KUMARI AMMA, KULAPRA MELATHIL VEEDU, PUNUKANNOOR CHERI, KOTTAMKKARA VILLAGE. BY ADVS.SRI.L.MOHANAN SRI.D.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANTS AND RESPODNENTS 1 AND 2/PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS 1 AND 2: -------------- 1. KULAPRA SREE MAHADEVAR DEVASWOM TRUST, REP. BY E.RAGHAVA UNNITHAN, PRESIDENT, KURYOTTU VALIYA VEEDU, CHADAYAMANGALAM. 2. V.RADHAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN, SECRETARY OF -DO- TRUST, MADHAVEE MANDIRAM, PUNUKKANNOOR, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE. 3. PADMANABHA PILLAI RAMAN PILLAI, ALAVILA VEEDU, FROM NILAVOOR VEEDU, PUNUKANNOOR CHERI, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE(DIED) 4. PADMANABHA PILLAI CHELLAPPAN PILLAI -DO- -DO- (DIED) BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI - R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.PREMCHAND - R1 & R2 THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.** **-------------------------------------S.A. No.178 of 2001 -------------------------------------Dated this the 9[th] day of August, 2012.** ## **JUDGMENT** In the second appeal brought by the 3[rd] defendant from the judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Kollam in A.S.No.67 of 1998 reversing the judgment and decree of learned Munsiff, Kollam in O.S.No.215 of 1983, the following substantial questions of law are framed for a decision: i. Is it not illegal in not considering competency of the plaintiff who got administration of a temple by an agreement to seek redemption of mortgage over a property belonging to the tarwad? ii. Is it not illegal to hold that there is acknowledgment of liability by the mere fact that the mortgage right was got assigned? iii. Is it not illegal to hold that a matter which is collateral or incidental in a prior suit will operate as a res judicata? iv. Is it not illegal to find res judicata without looking into the pleading of the previous case? v. Is not the interpretation made by the lower appellate court in respect of Ext.A2 vitiated due to the fact that it is in respect of a suit relating to a trust? 2. Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.215 of 1983 for redemption of mortgage over the suit properties created by Exts.A5 and A6, deeds dated 2 SA No.178/2001 19.08.1936 and 17.03.1943, respectively and allegedly assigned in favour of the appellant/3[rd] defendant as per Ext.A7, dated 04.06.1960. Respondents 1 and 2 stated that the suit properties, described in schedule-I of Ext.A1, partition deed of the year, 1107 ME executed in the Vadavoor kudumbam were set apart in common for the management of the temple and kalari. While so, the then karanavan of the tarwad, without legal necessity or occasion to encumber the property, executed Exts.A5 and A6, mortgage deeds which later was acquired by the appellant as per Ext.A7. It was contended that by Ext.A10, udambadi dated 26.03.1970 a Trust was created in the Vadavoor kudumbam for management of the temple and kalari. In the circumstances, respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for redemption of the mortgage. Respondents 1 and 2 claimed that earlier, they had filed O.S.No.46 of 1971 for a declaration that the plaintiffs therein are entitled to manage the affairs of the temple (in their capacity as representing the Trust created as per Ext.A10) and in the alternative to frame a scheme for the proper management of the temple and kalari. 3. The appellant/3[rd] defendant contended that respondents 1 and 2 are not competent to sue for redemption of the mortgage. She also contended that the suit is barred by limitation. A further plea raised is that the appellant is entitled to the protection of the Kerala Land Reforms Act (for short, “the KLR Act”). She prayed that the issue regarding tenancy be referred to the Land Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) for a decision as provided under Sec.125(3) of the said Act. 4. In the trial court, the issue regarding tenancy was referred to the 3 SA No.178/2001 Tribunal which entered a finding in favour of the appellant. Accepting that finding the trial court dismissed the suit. Respondents 1 and 2 took up the matter in appeal. The learned District Judge held that the plea of tenancy is barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of Ext.A2, judgment in O.S.No.46 of 1971 and hence the appellant is not entitled to seek protection of the KLR Act. A further finding is that in view of Ext.A7, the suit for redemption is not barred by limitation since according to the learned District Judge Ext.A7 contains an acknowledgment of the mortgage liability. The judgment and decree of the trial court were reversed and respondents 1 and 2 were given a decree for redemption. That judgment and decree are under challenge in the second appeal on the substantial questions of law above framed. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the appellant had a contention that respondents 1 and 2 are not competent to file the suit for redemption, the said question was not decided by the learned District Judge. The learned counsel contends that by virtue of Secs.60 and 91 of the Transfer of Property Act (for short, “the TP Act”), only the persons referred to therein can seek redemption of the mortgage. In this case, respondents 1 and 2, claimed to be the President and Secretary of the Trust formed under Ext.A10 are not competent to seek redemption of the mortgage. Hence the suit itself ought to have been dismissed as not maintainable. 6. The further contention of the learned counsel is that finding of the learned District Judge that the plea of tenancy under the KLR Act is barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of Ext.A2, judgment is 4 SA No.178/2001 unsustainable. It is argued that O.S.No.46 of 1971 was only a scheme suit where, right in respect of the suit property was neither directly nor substantially in issue and hence it was not necessary, and there was no occasion for the appellant to raise a contention regarding fixity of tenure under the KLR Act. In that view, the learned District Judge was not correct in holding that the plea of fixity of tenure is barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in **Sajjadanashin Sayed MD.B.E.EDR (D) by Lrs. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others ((2000) 3 SCC 350)** and in particular, the observations in paragraphs 10 to 12 to contend that findings on matters collaterally and incidentally in issue are not res judicata and that an issue which is not necessary for a decision of the principal issue involved in the suit cannot be said to be directly or substantially in issue so that Sec.11 or Explanation-IV to Sec.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, “the Code”) would apply. The learned counsel has argued that in view of the finding of the Tribunal that the appellant is a cultivating tenant entitled to fixity of tenure, the prayer for redemption was not allowable. 7. It is lastly argued that at any rate, the suit is barred by limitation as contended in paragraph 9 of the written statement of the appellant. It is argued that in Exts.A5 and A6, the time for redemption is not mentioned and hence period of limitation must run from the date of Exts.A5 and A6. It is argued that so far as the mortgage under Ext.A5 is concerned, the right for redemption became barred by limitation on 18.08.1966 while, so far as the mortgage under Ext.A6 is concerned, the right for redemption became barred by 16.03.1973. It is 5 SA No.178/2001 contended by the learned counsel that Ext.A7, assignment deed dated 04.06.1960 in favour of the appellant cannot be treated as an acknowledgment of liability under Sec.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short, “the Act”) for the reason that apart from describing the jural relationship between the parties to Ext.A7, there is no admission of any existing liability under the mortgage. To support the contention that Ext.A7 does not amount to an acknowledgment of an existing liability under Exts.A5 and A6, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in **Tilak Ram and others v. Nathu and others (AIR 1967 SC 935- paragraphs 9 to 11), Savithri Kunjamma v. Narayanan (1989 (2) KLT 628)** and **Prabhakaran and others v. M.Azhagiri Pillai ((2006) 4 SCC 484- paragraph 24)** . It is further argued by the learned counsel that Ext.A2, judgment cannot be taken as giving the respondents 1 and 2 a right to redeem the mortgage if they otherwise do not have that right. The learned counsel also contends that at any rate, even if Ext.A2, judgment has allowed the respondents 1 and 2 a right to seek redemption, as on the day O.S.No.46 of 1971 was filed, right to seek redemption so far as Ext.A5 is concerned, had already become barred by the law of limitation and hence Sec.18 of the Act has no application. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2, vehementally resisting the contentions advanced by the appellant has argued that so far as the plea of tenancy is concerned, the issue is concluded by Ext.A2, judgment. It is argued that O.S.No.46 of 1971 was not one for framing a scheme, it was a suit for a declaration that the properties referred to therein (including the suit properties) are the properties of the Trust created as per Ext.A10, that the 6 SA No.178/2001 question whether the said properties belonged to the Trust or not was very much in issue in the said suit and hence it was necessary for the appellant to raise a plea of fixity of tenure in the said suit but no such plea was raised. Instead, it was held that the appellant is only a mortgagee of the suit properties. Hence subsequent plea of fixity of tenure raised in the present suit is barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata. 9. So far as locus standi of respondents 1 and 2 to file a suit for redemption is concerned, it is argued that by creation of the Trust with respect to the suit property as per Ext.A10, there is a transfer of ownership in property in favour of the Trust and hence the Trust is entitled to seek redemption of the mortgage. 10. On the question of limitation, it is argued by the learned counsel that Ext.A7 contains admission in unequivocal terms as to the existing mortgage liability under Exts.A5 and A6. It is argued that in deciding whether Ext.A7 amounted to an admission of the existing liability, surrounding circumstances and the recitals therein are to be looked into. Viewed in that line, the first appellate court was right in holding that Ext.A7 amounted to an acknowledgment of the liability. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions in **Munshi Lal v. Hira Lal and another (AIR 1947 Allahabad 74), Easwara Pillai Krishna Poillai v. Raman Pillai Velayudhan Pillai (AIR 1957 Travancore-Cochin 159)** and **Uthup Joseph v. Ealya (1958 KLJ 416)** . It is also argued that at any rate, the written statement filed by the appellant as the 9[th] defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1971 (the contention, according to the learned 7 SA No.178/2001 counsel, is reproduced in Ext.A2, judgment) would amount to an admission of the existing mortgage liability. The learned counsel argued that in the written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971 (a copy of the written statement is not produced in the case), it is specifically contended by the appellant that apart from the mortgage money (`125/- payable as per Exts.A5 and A6), she is also entitled to get the sale consideration referred to in Ext.A7 and the value of improvements she is otherwise entitled to get before she is evicted. That, according to the learned counsel, though is followed by a contention that the appellant is entitled to the protection of the KLR Act, amounts to an unconditional admission of liability of the appellant under Exts.A5 and A6 and amounts to an acknowledgment of liability. 11. I shall first consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel as to locus standi of the respondents to file the suit. Argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that redemption of mortgage could be prayed for only by the persons referred to in Secs.60 and 91 of the TP Act and none of the respondents come under the said provisions. 12. It is not disputed that the 1[st] respondent is a member of the Vadavoor kudumbam to which the suit properties originally belonged. Ext.A10 shows that though for management of the temple and kalari a Trust was formed. Respondents 1 and 2 are the President and Secretary at the time of institution of the suit. 13. A 'Trust' is an obligation annexed to the ownership of the immovable property. In **Tangella Narasimhaswami, Dharmakartha of Sri** 8 SA No.178/2001 ## **Kodanda Ramchandra Moorty v. Madini Venkatalingam and others(AIR** **1927 Madras 636)** it is held that a Trust in effect is a gift of an interest in immovable property to a person or institution by or through the intervention of the trustee. As per the law in India, there could only be one owner once a Trust is formed and that is the trustee with whom the property is vested (see **Himansu Kumar Roy Chowdhury v. Moulvi Hasem Ali Khan (AIR 1938 Calcutta 818** ). In **W.O.Holdsworth v. State of UP (AIR 1957 SC 887)** it is held that a trustee is usually the legal owner of the trust property and holds it for the benefit of the cestui que trust. It is observed in the said decisions that the legal estate (in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the Trust) is vested in the trustees and they hold it for the benefit of the beneficiaries. 14. In view of the above decisions, it is within the competence of respondents 1 and 2 as President and Secretary of the Trust formed by Ext.A10, agreement and as confirmed in Ext.A2, judgment to sue for redemption of the mortgage, the Trust being the legal owner of the suit properties. Therefore, the contention that respondents 1 and 2 could not have, in their capacity as President and Secretary of the Trust, brought the suit for redemption of the mortgage has to fail. 15. Then the next contention is whether finding of learned District Judge that the plea of tenancy raised by the appellant is barred by res judicata/ constructive res judicata in so far as the said plea was not raised in O.S.No.46 of 1971 and in view of the finding in Ext.A2, judgment that she is a mortgagee? A copy of the written statement filed by the appellant as 9[th] defendant in O.S.No.46 9 SA No.178/2001 of 1971 is not exhibited in evidence. Though it is held in certain decisions that for attracting a plea of res judicata it is necessary to produce the pleadings and the judgment in the previous suit, it is also held that when the plea of parties is reproduced in the judgment, failure to produce the pleadings is not fatal. 16. There is no dispute regarding the pleadings reproduced in Ext.A2, judgment in O.S.No.46 of 1971. Appellant has not raised a plea in O.S.No.46 of 1971 that she is entitled to fixity of tenure, being a tenant as defined in Sec.2 (57) of the KLR Act. 17. I referred to the decision of the trial court accepting finding of the Tribunal on reference that the appellant is a cultivating tenant. The first appellate court has rejected that finding of the Tribunal as the plea of tenancy is barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata. In **Sajjadanashin Sayed MD.B.E.EDR** **(D) by Lrs. v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and others** (supra) in paragraphs 10 to 12, the circumstance under which a plea of res judicata or constructive res judicata would arise is explained. It is held that findings on matters collaterally and incidentally in issue are not res judicata. If the issue regarding tenancy was directly and substantially in issue in O.S.No.46 of 1971 but, not pleaded by the appellant, then, I must say that the present plea is barred by principles of constructive res judicata. If on the other hand as contended by the appellant the said issue was neither directly nor substantially in issue in O.S.No.46 of 1971 but was only collaterally or incidentally in issue, failure to raise the plea of tenancy in O.S.No.46 of 1971 cannot be taken as attracting Sec.11 (or Explanation IV of Sec.11) of the Code. 10 SA No.178/2001 18. Though it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that O.S.No.46 of 1971 is a suit for framing a scheme for the temple and kalari, I am unable to accept that contention. It is seen from Ext.A2, judgment that there, it was pleaded by the plaintiffs that creation of mortgage as per Exts.A5 and A6 by the 1[st] defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1971 was illegal being contrary to the terms of Exts.A1 and A10. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.46 of 1971 claimed that they are in possession of the suit properties (item No.17 in O.S.No.46 of 1971) as well and alleged that the defendants therein (including the appellant and her husband) are attempting to trespass into the said properties. Reliefs prayed for in O.S.No.46 of 1971 are a declaration that the properties (including the suit properties) belong to the Trust (created under Ext.A10, udambadi), that the said properties are set apart for the temple and kalari for its management and a declaration that the Trust has the right to administer the said properties for the purpose of the temple and kalari. There is also a prayer for a decree for prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants therein (including the appellant herein) from trespassing into the properties of the Trust (including the suit properties herein), taking income therefrom or committing waste therein. Alternatively, it is prayed in O.S.No.46 of 1971 that if the above referred reliefs are not allowable, a scheme may be framed for proper management of the temple and kalari. 19. In the nature of allegations made in O.S.No.46 of 1971 and the reliefs prayed for as above stated and revealed from Ext.A2, judgment as aforesaid, I find myself unable to accept the contention of the appellant that 11 SA No.178/2001 O.S.No.46 of 1971 is merely a suit for framing a scheme. On the other hand, it involved a prayer for declaration that the properties (including the suit properties) is trust property which the Trust is entitled to administer and for a decree for prohibitory injunction. 20. While referring to the locus standi of respondents 1 and 2 to seek redemption, I found that as per claim of the respondents 1 and 2, suit properties belonged to the Trust and hence the Trust could sue for redemption of the mortgage. On the same principle, I must say that the prayer in O.S.No.46 of 1971 was that the suit properties belonged to the Trust. If the appellant had a claim for fixity of tenure and if that claim was raised and accepted, no finding was possible that the suit properties were available for the Trust to be used for the purpose of the temple and its kalari. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the question whether the appellant is entitled to fixity of tenure was directly and substantially in issue in O.S.No.46 of 1971. The learned counsel for the appellant states that there was such a plea in the written statement filed by the appellant in O.S.No.46 of 1971. The learned counsel has given me a copy of the written statement filed by the appellant as the 9[th] defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1971. I find that what is pleaded therein is only that the appellant is entitled to the protection of the KLR Act. No specific plea was raised that the appellant is a tenant coming under Sec.2(57) of the KLR Act. There was also no plea that the appellant is entitled to fixity of tenure. At any rate even if any such plea was raised, no attempt was made by the appellant to get that plea adjudicated in O.S.No.46 of 1971. 12 SA No.178/2001 21. I have to say that the appellant had not raised a plea of fixity of tenure as if she is a cultivating tenant under Sec.2(57) of the KLR Act while resisting O.S.No.46 of 1971. That was a plea which was available to the appellant in that suit but, not taken. The principle of “might” and “ought” referred to in Explanation IV to Sec.11 the Code would apply. Therefore, the plea of tenancy raised in the present suit is barred by constructive res judicata as rightly found by the first appellate court. 22. What remains is whether the suit for redemption is barred by limitation? It is argued that the right to sue for redemption of Ext.A5, mortgage stood barred by limitation by 18.08.1966 while, so far as Ext.A6 is concerned, that is dated 16.03.1973. Ext.A7, assignment deed in favour of the appellant is dated 04.06.1960. If Ext.A7 can be taken as an acknowledgment of an existing liability under the mortgage, that acknowledgment having been made before the expiry of the period of limitation to seek redemption of Exts.A5 and A6 as provided under Sec.18 of the Act, I must accept the argument of the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the suit is within time. If, on the other hand, Ext.A7 cannot be taken as an acknowledgment of liability but as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant there is only a description of the jural relationship the vendor of Ext.A7 had with the mortgagors under Exts.A5 and A6, Ext.A7 cannot be taken as an acknowledgment of liability. 23. In **Tilak Ram and others v. Nathu and others** (supra ) it is held in paragraph 9: “............ Nevertheless, the statement on which a plea of acknowledgment is based must 13 SA No.178/2001 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.”” In paragraph 10, it is observed: “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 marker by an involved or a far-fetched process of reasoning.” 24. Referring to the principles above stated, the Supreme Court 14 SA No.178/2001 considered the question whether in that case there was an acknowledgment of the liability by the document in question. That question was answered in paragraph 11 of the decision. It is held that Ext.E dated, April 8, 1992 is a mortgage deed executed by Parmeshwardas in favour of Badam for `200/-. The document referred is only to one out of the seven mortgages. Though it referred to the mortgage is in favour of Dharamdas, it did so for the purpose of describing the interest Parmeshwardas has mortgaged in favour of Dharamdas and on his own right in redeeming the mortgage. On the facts and circumstances of the case the recital in Ext.E was held to be not sufficient to amount to an admission of the existing liability under the mortgage. So that Sec.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (corresponding to Sec.18 of the present Act) would apply. 25. This Court while deciding **Savithri Kunjamma v. Narayanan** (supra) referred to the above said decision of the Apex Court. It was held that a mere statement of jural relationship does not constitute acknowledgment. It is interesting to notice that in that case, the deed of assignment of mortgage even stated that the assignee has to enjoy the property “subject to” (അധ�നമ�യ�) the mortgage deed, but the learned Judge was not inclined to accept the said statement as amounting to admission of an existing mortgage liability. 26. The other decision that the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to is **Prabhakaran and others v. M.Azhagiri Pillai** (supra). There, in paragraph 24 the situations in which (though not exhaustive) an admission of existing jural relationship could be inferred are illustrated. It is as under: 15 SA No.178/2001 “We may illustrate as to what is a mere reference or description of the jural relationship and what constitutes an intention to admit the jural relationship. If the relevant portion of the deed of assignment, sought to be relied on as an acknowledgment merely stated that “X mortgaged the schedule property in my favour under the deed of usufructuary mortgage dated (date) and I hereby assign the said mortgage in your favour”, it will not be an “acknowledgment” under Section 18 of the Act. This is because it refers only to the jural relationship, but does not show an intention to admit the jural relationship with the mortgagor or admit his subsisting liability as mortgage of being redeemed. But the position will be different, if the assignment deed further stated: “The said mortgage is subsisting” or “The rights and obligations under the said mortgage are enforceable”, or “The assignee is entitled to all benefits under the said mortgage”, or “The assignee is entitled to receive the amount advanced under the said mortgage”, or “The assignee is entitled to all rights and liable for all obligations under the said mortgage”, or “The assignee is entitled to continue in possession until the mortgage is redeemed”. The use of any such words (which are illustrative and not exhaustive) would show an intention to admit the jural relationship, and therefore, amount to acknowledgment, though they may not refer to the mortgagor's right of redemption. Ultimately, it is not the form of the words, but the intention to admit the jural relationship with the mortgagor, that will determine whether a statement is 16 SA No.178/2001 an acknowledgment”. 27. **Munshi Lal v. Hira Lal and another** (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 referred to an acknowledgment by the mortgagor to his prior mortgage. At page 80, (paragraph 22), it is stated that a document stated to constitute an acknowledgment has to be construed in the context in which it is given and that, where its language is not clear in itself, the context may be examined to see what it is to which the words refer. That is not to say that any equivocation in an acknowledgment can be cured by ascertaining what the probable intention of the acknowledgor was. That is quite a different thing, But where, after examining in the light of the context what it was that the person giving the acknowledgment was actually referring to, the conclusion follows that it is an unequivocal acknowledgment of a right, then that acknowledgment is sufficient to satisfy S.19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 (corresponding to Sec.18 of the Act) . In paragraph 21, there is reference to the fact situation in the reported case. After referring to the facts of that case, it is held that the plaintiff in that suit are right in saying that they had on 11.07.1929 an acknowledgment from the predecessors-in-title themselves of the appellant. 28. In **Easwara Pillai Krishna Pillai v. Raman Pillai Velayudhan Pillai** (supra) question related to the limitation for execution of a decree. There, it was held that the statement contained in a document acknowledging liability under the decree would amount to an acknowledgment as understood under Sec.19 of the Act of 1908 (Sec.18 of the Act) **.** There also it was held that if there is an admission of existence of binding decree, though it was further SA No.178/2001 17 stated that the decree was wrongly passed, that would amount to an acknowledgment of the liability. Reference was made to **Achuthan v. Kunnambrath Abdu (AIR 1925 Madras 675)** where the finding made was that a mere statement about passing of a decree will not amount to any acknowledgment as that will not indicate the existence of an enforceable decree. In **Uthup Joseph v. Ealya** (supra) it was held that an admission to prevent the running of time under the Limitation Act need not be in the full sense of the word and that if proper inference is drawn from the admission which is made it was intended to represent the debt as then subsisting, such admission is sufficient. 29. On a reading of the above decisions, the principle that could be deduced is that the question whether there is an acknowledgment of liability is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case if necessary, referring to the attending circumstances. There must be a clear intention to admit the liability as per the statement in question. If on the otherhand, what is contended is only a description of the relationship or, a reference to the jural relationship alone without an admission of the existing liability, that would not amount to an acknowledgment under Sec.18 of the Act. 30. In Ext.A7, it is recited as to the right the vendor of Ext.A7 acquired under Exts.A5 and A6. Further it is recited in Ext.A7: **==> picture [219 x 13] intentionally omitted <==** സ�ബന�ച� ഞങളക�ള ഒറ� ക�ഴ�ക�ണ ദ#ഹണ�#� അവക�ശങള സകല��� ഇ��ന�ല ഒഴ�ഞ� വസ���വ�� വ*കങള�� കകട�ടവ��വ�ട� ന�ങളക� ഒറ� ക�ഴ�ക�ണ 18 SA No.178/2001 കകമ�റവ�മ�യ� �ന� ഒറ�യര2� ദ#ഹണ വ�ലയ�ളക3കട ഞങളക� അര2� �ര �വ�ന�ള��കക �റ � ര4� 2500. ................ ട� ഒറ�ക�ഴ�ക�ണ ദ#ഹണബ�ദ:�കള�ല സ���ച� യ�ക��ര� വ�ധമ�യ മ�നബ�ദ:�കള�� ഇക=ന� ന�ങകള �റഞ � വ�ശ?സ�3�ച�ര�ക�ന�.................” Towards the last portion of Ext.A7 it is recited : “ട�യ�ധ�രങള പ�ക�ര� അസല ഒറ�യര2� ന4റ� ഇര��ത�യഞ� ര4�യ�ണ�...........” 31. It is argued by the learned counsel that the respondents 1 and 2 that the above recitals are not a mere, passing observation regarding the jural relationship but, amount to an admission of the existing liability under Exts.A5 and A6. The learned counsel submits that otherwise, there was no necessity to tell the appellant as per Ext.A7 that there was no further liability (other than mortgage liability) on the property dealt with under Ext.A7. It is argued that if the intention of the parties by Ext.A7 was not to acknowledge the existing liability under Exts.A5 and A6, it was not necessary to state in Ext.A7 that the mortgage money is `125/-. 32. I must notice that what is recited therein (the first extracted portion) is only the derivation of title of the vendor of Ext.A7 (by Exts.A5 and A6). Such a description of title the vendor acquired was necessary to be made in Ext.A7; for, .the vendor could only transfer the right he acquired, obviously under Exts.A5 and A6. Therefore, the recital in Ext.A7 that the vendor has assigned whatever right he has acquired under Exts.A5 and A6 cannot be understood as 19 SA No.178/2001 amounting to an admission of existing liability under the mortgage. 33. Nor am I impressed by the contention that by Ext.A7, the appellant was told that apart from the mortgage liability there is no other liability over the property and that amounts to an acknowledgment of the existing liability. A perusal of the above extracted portion would show what is stated therein is only that there is no encumbrance or other liability over the mortgage right and over the right of the vendor for the improvements in the property. True, as extracted above, it is recited in Ext.A7 that the mortgage money is `125/-. That recital in my view is of no consequence since the reference in Ext.A7 is only to the mortgage money as per Exts.A5 and A6. 34. I must notice that there is no recital in Ext.A7 that the appellant, the assignee is to enjoy the property subject to the existing mortgage. In this connection, I must notice the decision in **Savithri Kunjamma v. Narayanan** (supra) where, notwithstanding the recital in the deed that the right assigned is “subject to” (അധ�നമ�യ�) the mortgage, this Court refused to accept that recital as amounting to an admission of the existing liability under the mortgage. The situation is better in this case where I do not find any such recital in Ext.A7. Nor do I find any expression as illustrated by the Supreme Court in paragraph 24 of the **Prabhakaran and others v. M.Azhagiri Pillai (dead) By Lrs. and others** (supra) to conclude that the recitals in Ext.A7 amounted to an admission of existing liability under Exts.A5 and A6 so that the respondents 1 and 2 would get a fresh period of limitation computed from the date of Ext.A7. The finding of the first appellate court in that regard is erroneous as not being in accordance with 20 SA No.178/2001 the law. That finding therefore, has to go. 35. The next question is whether the finding in Ext.A2 that the appellant is a mortgagee would operate as res judicata and would confer any fresh lease of life for the mortgage so that respondents 1 and 2 are entitled to seek redemption from the date of Ext.A2, judgment? 36. A judgment of the court cannot confer a cause of action for a party. It may declare the right of the party. In Ext.A2, in the operative portion it is held that over the 1.32 acres (constituted by item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule) the 9[th] defendant (appellant herein) is a mortgagee and the plaintiffs (in O.S.No.46 of 1971) “are directed to redeem the mortgage in appropriate proceedings.” 37. I am not inclined to accept the above as a mandatory direction to the plaintiffs in O.S.No.46 of 1971 or other person representing the Trust created by Ext.A10 to redeem the mortgage. That observation in the operative portion of Ext.A2, judgment can only be understood as referring to the right (if otherwise respondents 1 and 2 have) to seek redemption of the mortgage. Therefore, the observation in Ext.A2, judgment that the appellant is a mortgagee and that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.46 of 1971 are directed to redeem the mortgage cannot confer any right on the respondents 1 and 2 to seek redemption if they are otherwise not entitled. 38. Then the next question is whether the contention raised by the appellant as the 9[th] defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1971 that she is a mortgagee of the suit property, is entitled to the mortgage money as well as the sale 21 SA No.178/2001 consideration under Ext.A7 and the value of improvements she has effected would amount to an acknowledgment of the liability? 39. It is admitted by the learned counsel on both sides that the written statement filed by the appellant as 9[th] defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1971 is dated 07.02.1972. The filing of that written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971 if not on 07.02.1972, can only be later. Hence the question whether the contention raised in the written statement dated 07.02.1972 would amount to an acknowledgment of the liability under the mortgage should be decided as on 07.02.1972. That is because to constitute a valid acknowledgment under Sec.18 of the Act, such acknowledgment should be made within the period of limitation prescribed. 40. Ext.A5, mortgage deed is dated 13.08.1936 and hence the period of limitation prescribed for redemption of the mortgage under Ext.A5 expired by 12.08.1966. By virtue of Sec.30 of the Act, the suit to the extent it concerned Ext.A5 ought to have been filed on or before 31.12.1970. The acknowledgment if any, in the written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971 is made on 07.02.1972. Therefore, even if the contention raised in the written statement of the appellant in O.S.No.46 of 1971 is taken as amounting to an acknowledgment, the right to redeem the mortgage as per Ext.A5 (item No.1 of plaint schedule) was barred by limitation even before 07.02.1972 and hence the written statement dated 07.02.1972 could not be taken as an acknowledgment so far as Ext.A5 is concerned. 41. But so far as item No.2 covered by Ext.A6, mortgage is concerned, 22 SA No.178/2001 the period of 30 years computed from the date of Ext.A6 expires on 16.03.1973 and if there is any acknowledgment of liability in the written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971, that acknowledgment was on 07.02.1972. Therefore, so far as item No.2 of the plaint schedule is concerned, if there was an acknowledgment of liability in the written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971 it may have been possible for the respondents 1 and 2 to contend that they got a further period so far as item No.2 of the plaint schedule is concerned, from 07.02.1972. 42. Unfortunately, I do not find any such plea in the plaint. Nor is a copy of written statement of the appellant as 9[th] defendant in O.S.No.46 of 1971 exhibited in the case. Acknowledgment under Sec.18 of the Act has to be pleaded and proved. Therefore, in this proceeding I am unable to say whether the right of respondents 1 and 2 to redeem the mortgage over item No.2 of the plaint schedule vide Ext.A6 is barred by limitation or not. 43. In view of the situation I have referred above as regards right of respondents 1 and 2 to redeem the mortgage over item No.2 of the plaint schedule, I am inclined to think that notwithstanding that the suit is of the year, 1983 the respondents 1 and 2 must be given an opportunity to plead and prove the acknowledgment (if any) arising from the contention the appellant has raised in the written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971 to the extent it concerned redemption of mortgage over item No.2 of the plaint schedule. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that an amendment of the plaint to incorporate a plea of acknowledgment based on the written statement dated 23 SA No.178/2001 07.02.1972 is itself time barred since even if computed from 07.02.1972, the suit even concerning item No.2 will be barred by limitation as on the date of seeking the amendment. I am not very much impressed by that contention as the respondents 1 and 2 have already pleaded the foundation (based on Ext.A2, judgment) in the plaint though not explicitly referring to the plea in the written statement dated 07.02.1972. To the extent it concerned item No.2 of the plaint schedule (covered by Ext.A2), I am inclined to remit the suit to the trial court for a fresh decision on the question of limitation (alone). 44. But, I make it clear that apart from stating the factual situation I have not expressed any opinion whether there is any acknowledgment of liability made by the appellant in the written statement in O.S.No.46 of 1971 and whether, that would constitute a valid acknowledgment as contemplated by Sec.18 of the Act so far as redemption of mortgage over item No.2 is concerned. I leave those matters for the decision of the trial court. 45. Since respondents 1 and 2 are representing the Trust it is needless to say that those who represent that Trust can continue the suit. 46. In the light of the discussion above made, I reach the following conclusions: (i) Contention of the appellant that respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to seek redemption of mortgage cannot be accepted since by Exts.A1 and A10 a Trust is created with respect to the suit properties and it is within the right of the respondents 1 and 2 as President and Secretary of the Trust to seek redemption of the mortgage. 24 SA No.178/2001 (ii) Finding of the first appellate court that the plea of fixity of tenure raised by the appellant over the suit properties is barred by res judicata/constructive res judicata in view of the decision in O.S.No.46 of 1971 is upheld. (iii) Finding of the first appellate court that Ext.A7 constitutes an acknowledgment of liability under the mortgage is set aside. It is held that Ext.A7 does not amount to any acknowledgment of liability under the mortgage. (iv) Finding of the first appellate court that the suit is not barred by limitation to the extent it concerned item No.1 of plaint schedule covered by Ext.A5, mortgage deed is set aside. It is found that the suit to the extent it concerned redemption of mortgage over item No.1 of plaint schedule is barred by the law of limitation. (v) Finding of the first appellate court regarding limitation to the extent it concerned item No.2 of the plaint schedule is set aside. That issue (alone) is remitted to the trial court for fresh decision. 47. The substantial questions of law framed are answered as above. Resultantly, the Second Appeal is allowed in part as under: i. The judgment and decree of learned District Judge, Kollam in A.S.No.67 of 1998 are set aside. ii. O.S.No.215 of 1983 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam to the extent it concerned item No.1 of the plaint schedule will stand dismissed as barred by limitation. 25 SA No.178/2001 iii. O.S.No.215 of 1983 of the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam to the extent it concerned item No.2 of the plaint schedule is remitted to that court for fresh decision whether the suit to the extent it concerned item No.2 is barred by limitation, after giving the parties opportunity to amend their pleadings and adduce evidence on that issue. - v. Parties shall appear in the trial court on 17.09.2012. - vi. The trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of suit. Registry shall send back the records to the Additional Munsiff's Court, Kollam forthwith. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. **THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.** **cks** SA No.178/2001 26 **THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.** **S.A.No.178 of 2001** ## **JUDGMENT** **9[th] August, 2012.**