Limitation and acknowledgment under special local law remain available where the general Limitation Act is not excluded.

Section 20 of the Limitation Act applies to suits governed by Section 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act because Section 24 was treated as substituting its special limitation period into the general limitation framework. The court reasoned that, under Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, only the provisions expressly preserved continue to operate when a special law prescribes a different period. On that reading, the general Act remains applicable to the extent not excluded, including acknowledgment or payment provisions. This approach preserves the operation of limitation rules under the general statute alongside the special local law.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 20 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit governed by Section 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act so as to permit acknowledgment or endorsement to extend limitation.

Analysis: Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act was treated as governing the interaction between the general limitation law and a special local law. The reasoning proceeded on the footing that once a special law prescribes a period different from the general schedule, only the provisions expressly saved by Section 29(2) apply, and the remaining provisions do not. The Court, however, accepted the earlier Mysore view that Section 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act uses the language of substitution and, by statutory fiction, reads the special period into the Limitation Act framework. On that basis, the limitation scheme under the general Act remained operative, including the provision concerning acknowledgment or payment.

Conclusion: Section 20 of the Limitation Act applies to suits under Section 24 of the Mysore Agriculturists' Relief Act, and the suit was not barred by limitation.

---