Acknowledgment of liability requires recognition of a subsisting debt, not mere proof of promissory note execution.

An acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 must show a present subsisting liability and a conscious intention to admit the existing jural relationship between the parties. A mere admission of execution of a promissory note, without surrounding circumstances showing recognition of an outstanding debt, is only a statement of past fact and does not extend limitation. On the facts, the deposition relied on referred only to execution of the promissory note, with no material to convert it into an admission of liability. The suit therefore remained barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statement made by the respondent in a deposition in another suit amounted to an acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Analysis: An acknowledgment under Section 19 must indicate a present subsisting liability and a conscious intention to admit the existing jural relationship between the parties. A mere admission of execution of a promissory note, without more, is not enough to amount to an acknowledgment of liability. Such an admission may remain only a statement of past fact unless the surrounding circumstances clearly show that the maker intended to recognise an outstanding liability. On the facts, the two sentences relied on in the deposition referred only to execution of the promissory note, and no surrounding circumstance was established to convert that statement into an admission of subsisting liability.

Conclusion: The statement did not constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and the suit remained barred by limitation.

---