JUDGMENT : Banerji, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for the redemption of a mortgage alleged by the plaintiffs to have been made in 1859 by Bharose and Gulzar in favour of Debi Dyal and Ram Sadhak. The defendants to the suit are either the heirs of the mortgagees or auction-purchasers of the interests of one or other of them. The appellants before us are auction-purchasers of the interests of Debi Dayal. Their defence to the suit was that the mortgage was made more than 100 years before the date of the suit, and that the claim was consequently barred by limitation. The Court below has been unable to find on what date the mortgage was made so that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the date they assigned to the mortgage. 2. In answer to the defence about limitation they relied upon an acknowledgment made in 1869. Assuming that that acknowledgment is an acknowledgment of a subsisting mortgage, there are two circumstances which preclude the plaintiffs from taking advantage of it as saving the operation of limitation. The first is that the acknowledgment was not signed by both the mortgagees. It purports to have been signed by Ram Sadhak for himself and as agent for Debi Dayal. It was made in 1869 when Act No. XIV of 1859 was in force. Under that Act an acknowledgment by an agent could not have the effect of saving the operation of limitation. This was held by the Privy Council in Luchmee Bukhsh Roy v. Ranjit Ram Panday, [1874] 13 B.L., 177, which was followed by this Court in Rahmani Bibi v. Hulasa Kuar, [1878] I.L.R. 1 All., 642. 3. There being thus no acknowledgment by Debi Dayal, whose interests' have been acquired by the appellants, that acknowledgment can be of no avail against them. Again, as the mortgage was a joint mortgage in favour of two mortgagees, an acknowledgment by one of them could not enure to the benefit of the mortgagor as against the other. This was held in Dharma v. Balmakund, [1896] I.L.R., 18 All., 458. Again, as the mortgage was a joint mortgage in favour of two mortgagees, an acknowledgment by one of them could not enure to the benefit of the mortgagor as against the other. This was held in Dharma v. Balmakund, [1896] I.L.R., 18 All., 458. Therefore the acknowledgment made in 1869 cannot be of any avail to the plaintiffs, and as the plaintiffs have failed to prove the date of the mortgage and to establish that the suit was brought within 60 years of that date, their suit ought to have been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. 4. We accordingly allow the appeal with costs and, setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court with costs, restore that of the Court of first instance.