Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the 10th defendant in O.S. No. 262 of 1120 of the Court of the District Munsiff, Moovattupuzha, and his contention is that the suit is barred by limitation. 2. The suit is based on a chitty security bond and it is common ground that the time began to run from 25.12.1100 and that the plaint filed on 9.6.1120 was clearly out of time but for certain acknowledgments made by the first defendant, the executant of the security bond. It is also agreed that the first defendant had parted with all his rights in respect of the items in which the 10th defendant is interested prior to all the acknowledgments that could possibly be pressed into service for the purpose of saving limitation. 3. The only question, therefore, is whether the fact that the first defendant had still the equity of redemption over some of the items covered by the security bond is sufficient to make his acknowledgment effective as far as the items in which he was no longer interested on the date of the acknowledgment are concerned. The identical question was answered in the negative by their Lordships of the Privy Council in AIR 1942 PC 67. That the sale effected in that case was not of all the items included in the mortgage but only of some of them is clear from the words underlined by us in the following extract from Lord Atkin's judgment: "On 30th May 1914 the four brothers and a sister who between them at that date possessed the entire property in the lands in question subject to the mortgages sold to the respondent R.M. Skinner certain of the mortgaged lands, on the terms mentioned in the deed of that date". 4. Attempts to whittle down the effect of AIR 1942 P.C. 67 though sometimes made have never found favour with the Courts in this country. In AIR 1946 Mad. 88, for example, the two contentions raised were: "(1) that the mortgagor had not parted with all the property hypothecated at the time he made the acknowledgment; and (2) that the personal remedy against the mortgagor was still alive on the date of the acknowledgement." The Court seems to have felt no hesitation to reject both those contentions on the strength of AIR 1942 P.C. 67. 5. 5. The decision in AIR 1942 P.C. 67 has recently been discussed and followed by a Full Bench of this Court in 1953 KLT 144 and the view we adopt in accepting the contention of the appellant can be traced in a continuous line of judicial reasoning through that decision 1942 P.C. 67 and the judgment of Kukerji, J. in 1 CLJ 337 to Lord Westbury's insistence in 32 LJ Ch. 219 that the principles of natural justice should find some place even in the and regions of statutory construction. 6. In the light of what is stated above we allow the appeal with costs. 7. There is a memorandum of objections filed by the first and second respondents. The same is dismissed with costs subject to the finding of the lower Court regarding the sale and delivery of item No. 2 of O.S. No. 2 of 1111 of the District Munsiff's Court, Moovattupuzha - an item in which the appellant is not interested - being set aside and left open for future adjudication. Appeal allowed.