JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been filed against the judgment and decree dated dated 9.12.2011 passed by Additional District Judge, Kotputli Distt. Jaipur in Civil Regular Appeal No. 30/2006 whereby the appellate court has affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 24.4.2006 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.), Kotputli Distt. Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 94/2000 by which suit of the plaintiff for redemption of mortgage has been decreed. 2. The short facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that respondent No.1 Smt. Sita Sharma instituted a suit that by registered sale deed dated 16.10.61 her father Fateh Chand and uncle Jagdish Prasad has mortgaged the property to Hanuman Sharan Choudhary. It was further pleaded that the mortgagor did not repay any amount thereof. Thereafter, mortgagee Hanuman Sharan has let out the property to Mohan Lal Jain and it was further sub-let to Kailash Chand Bajrang Lal, insolvency proceedings were also initiated for Jagdish Prasad and Fateh Chand but on the death of them, the proceedings were annulled. During the pendency of insolvency proceedings, the right in the property has been assigned by Hanuman Sharan Choudhary to Sneh Lal and suit for redemption of mortgage has been filed pleading cause of action for the suit to arise from 16.10.61 i.e. date of mortgage and on 14.3.1977 i.e. date of acknowledgement by assigning the rights of property to Sneh Lal. The suit was decreed by the court below and appeal has also been dismissed, hence this appeal. 3. The contention of the present appellant is two-fold. His first contention is that respondent No.1 Sita Devi is not the sole heir of deceased Fateh Chand, mortgagor, she has not filed the suit with clean hands and she has concealed material facts that two legal heirs of deceased Fateh Chand, one daughter and one son is also there, hence for non joinder of legal heirs, the suit is not maintainable and his other contention is that right of redemption came to an end on expiry of 30 days. Admittedly, the mortgage deed is of 16.10.1961 and suit has been filed after 39 years and furthermore his contention that as per Article 61-B of the Limitation Act, property has been transferred by document dated 29.3.77 and within 12 years, the suit has not been filed, hence the suit is barred by limitation as well as be thrown out in absence of necessary parties and both the courts below has not considered this aspect of the matter in right perspective.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that Ex. 7 agreement executed in favour of Sneh Lal, is admitted document of both parties and it is an acknowledgement in writing in clear terms and Article 18 of the Limitation Act gives a new life to the limitation by virtue of this agreement and his another fold of argument is that when Ex.7 is unregistered cannot be termed as a transfer, hence Article 61-B has no relevance and when mortgage has been admitted in Ex.7, a new cause of action will arise, hence it is not barred by limitation. As regards necessary party, his contention is that Fateh Chand has only one legal heir i.e. plaintiff Sita Devi and court below has rightly held that this fact has not been proved that Fateh Chand is having any other legal heir and if for the sake of arguments, it can be assumed that Fateh Chand is having any other legal heir, still under Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act any legal heir has a right to redeem and in view of Order 1, Rule 9 Civil Procedure Code, the other legal heirs are not necessary party, they have not come forward to claim their rights and there is no perversity in the impugned judgments. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments and decree under appeals as well as the original record of the case. 5. As regards necessary party, issue No.6 has been answered concurrently by both the courts below. The learned trial Court has held that appellant has not proved that Fateh Chand is having any other legal heirs, namely Geeta and Pradeep Kumar and court below has found that this fact has not been proved by the defendant and furthermore, it has been held that as per Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, co-mortgagor can bring the suit for redemption. The appellate court has also not disturbed the finding as regards existence of other legal heirs of Fateh Chand and has held that as per Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act, the suit was maintainable. Order 1, Rule 9 CPC is clear on this point that the suit shall not be defeated by reason of mis-joinder or non-joiner of parties. Reliance has been placed by the appellant on Heera Lal & Anr. v. Harivallabh, 1969 WLN 242 wherein it has been held that without joining co-mortgagee, the suit cannot lie. 6. In view of the above, when the learned trial Court has held that no legal heirs of Fateh Chand are in existence and this finding has not been disturbed by the appellate court also, hence both the courts below are concurrent on the fact that Fateh Chand is having no other legal heir except respondent No.1 and other legal heirs have not come forward to object, no perversity or misreading of facts have been shown by the appellant. Issue involved in the case is related to question of fact and there is concurrent finding of the issue No.6 by both the courts below which suffers from no perversity and no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. 7. The next contention of the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation. The facts are not in dispute that initial mortgage deed was of 16.10.1961 and rights have been assigned on 14.3.77. The contention of the respondents is that by virtue of agreement dated 14.3.77, acknowledgement has been made with intention of admitting the jural relationship and limitation would start from the date of deed and reliance has been placed on Prabhakaran & ors. v. M. Azhagiri Pillai (dead) by LRs & ors., AIR 2006 SC 1567 . Per contra, the contention of the appellant is that mere statement of expressing jural relationship between the parties does not constitute acknowledgement and reliance has been placed on Tilak Ram & ors. v. Nathu & ors., AIR 1967 SC 935 (1). 8. Both the parties has placed reliance on deed of 14.3.77, Ex.7 where a specific narration has been made as regards to fact of mortgage and mortgagee has specifically stated that property is in mortgage and a clear admission has been made that the mortgagor has right to redeem the property from the mortgagee. 8. Both the parties has placed reliance on deed of 14.3.77, Ex.7 where a specific narration has been made as regards to fact of mortgage and mortgagee has specifically stated that property is in mortgage and a clear admission has been made that the mortgagor has right to redeem the property from the mortgagee. Hence has admitted the existence of mortgage, thus Ex. 7 in clear terms admits the fact of mortgage, substance of mortgage and relationship between the mortgagee and mortgagor and in Prabhakaran & ors., (supra) it has been held as under: "The deed further states that the assignee (Soundararaaja Iyenger) was entitled to receive all the amounts as per the original mortgage. The further statement that the assignee is entitled to receive the amount as per the original mortgage is an assertion of the right of the mortgagee against the mortgagor under the mortgage, and consequently, an admission of the subsistence of the mortgage and of the jural relationship between the mortgagee and the mortgagor. It is an acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Act. The High Court though referred to the said further statement in the deed of assignment, missed its significance and erroneously held that the deed contained only a passing reference to the mortgage, and not a conscious acknowledgement." 9. In view of the above, the courts below have rightly held that as per acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Act, the suit was within limitation and looking to the concurrent findings of fact, no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. No perversity has been shown as regards misreading or misinterpreting the evidence and Ex.7 which is the admitted document of both the parties has been relied upon by both the courts below. 10. Reliance could be placed on Boodireddy Chandraiah & ors. v. Arigela Laxmi & Anr., AIR 2008 SC 380 wherein it has been held as under:- "It will, therefore, depend on the facts and circumstances of each case whether a question of law is a substantial one and involved in the case, or not; the paramount overall consideration being the need for striking a judicious balance between the indispensable obligation to do justice at all stages and impelling necessity of avoiding prolongation in the life of any lis." There is no merit in this appeal. No other issue has been raised in the arguments before this Court.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******