VORA GAFURBHAI AJAMBHAI HEIRS OF DECD VOHRA GAFURBHAI AJAMBHAI Vs. VORA KADARBHAI USMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) [His Lordship after discussing the evidence further observed :]

(2.) This brings me to the second contention vigorously put forward by Mr. Zaveri to save the plaintiff suit. It was firstly contended that the mortgage deed Ex. 50 itself saved the period of limitation because there is an acknowledgment of the previous mortgage. It is to be noted with pertinance that Ex. 50 is executed one-sidedly by the mortgagor No. 2 of the deed Ex. 49. It is no doubt addressed to the mortgagee but the acknowledgment in writing is only of the mortgagor No. 2 who is the sole mortgagor of the deed Ex. 50. The document in its material part does not bear any signature of the mortgagee. Mr. Zaveri. however urged that this deed Ex. 50 was presented to the Registrar by the mortgagee and therefore under sec. 32 of the Indian Registration Act he can be said to be a person claiming interest under the deed. This cannot be gainsaid. However only inference that can be drawn from this signature about presentation is that he was claiming a mortgagees right under that deed and no further. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court in the case of M/S. LAKSHMIRATAN COTTON MILLS CO. LTD. V. M/S. BEHARI LAL RAM CHARAN A. I. R. 1971 S. C. 1482 has observed that the statement on which the plea of acknowledgment is founded need not amount to promise and need not indicate the exact nature or the specific character of the liability. However what Mr. Zaveri wants me to infer is that from the endorsement of presentation made by the mortgagee whatever is stated in the document must be treated to have been acknowledged and that too in writing by the mortgagee is difficult to be accepted.

(3.) Mr. Zaveri has cited various other rulings also but in each of those cases there was a direct acknowledgment in substance. As for example in the case of LALA SONI RAM V. KANHAIYA LAL 15 G. L. R. 489 receipts of the money received by the mortgagee were be evidence that they had taken money from the public authorities as mortgagees and the register of the public authorities did mention the description of the recipient of that amount as being of mortgagees. So that authority would not help the plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that as held by the Bombay High Court in the case of HIRALAL ICCHALAL MAJMUDAR V. NARSILAL CHATURBHUJDAS DESAI 11 B. L. R. 318(324)a man who puts his signature must know what he is doing and a presumption may be drawn that a man who signs a particular documents must be presumed to have known what he signed. In the case on hand the mortgagee took the deed Ex. 50. At the most he can be said to have known that he was given a charge on the very property which was mortgaged with him but that does not mean that there was any express or implied intention on his part to make any acknowledgment.