1. The facts of this case briefly are that two widows mortgaged for necessity the lands now in suit. The five defendants are their reversioners, the widows being dead. The mortgagee sues to put the property up for sale on a date well past the period of limitation, on the ground that limitation has been sived by a payment made by one of the reversioners as interest at a moment which brings the suit within limitation. The defence taken to the suit was by one of the reversioners only. He pleaded that payment by one reversioner could not bind the whole body of reversioners. The learned Munsif decreed the suit on the claims, firstly, that the acknowledgment binds the whole mortgaged property, and secondly, that even if it binds only the acknowledging reversioner, it must be held to bind not only the reversioner who made the acknowledgment but also three of the reversioners who have not contested the suit in any way. Upon the first ground reliance is placed on the case of Saroda Charan Chuckerbutty v. Durga Ram De Sinha(1). But that case is easily distinguishable from the present case. The present case is one of five reversioners inheriting separate and distinct shares in the property. They are not a joint family; they have separate interests. In the case quoted the acknowlodging representative of the mortgagor was one of four sons still joint inheriting an indivisible liability in an indivisible debt.
2. The principle underlying the whole decision was that the payment was made by the karta or agent of the whole family authorized to bind the whole property. In the present case there is no such question.
3. We must regard the five reversioners as co-mortgagors by right of succession to the interest of the original mortgagors. The acknowledgment by one of them cannot bind the others, even though in the written statement set before the Court no exception is taken by three of the reversioners to the suit in which it is sought to obtain a decree. We hold that the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge is correct. The appeal is dismissed with costs.
V.S/R.K
4. Appeal dismissed.