Limitation and acknowledgment principles barred the money suit where a will recital and pauper proceedings could not save time

Limitation ran from the date the ornaments were sold and used for renovation, because later pleaded dates did not affect the cause of action. A recital in the will did not amount to an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, as it merely described the use of the ornaments and did not admit any present debt or jural relationship. Section 13 did not extend time, because the fiction of filing on the date of a pauper application applies only within the same proceeding after conversion, not to a later independent suit. The plaint therefore disclosed an out-of-time claim and had to fail under Section 3.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's money suit was barred by limitation, and whether the prior pauper proceedings or the recitals in the will saved limitation.

Analysis: Limitation had to be computed from the date on which the ornaments were sold and used for the renovation, since the later dates pleaded had no bearing on the cause of action. The will did not amount to an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability, because it merely referred to the use of the ornaments for repairs and did not admit any present debt or jural relationship. An acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act must relate to a subsisting liability and cannot be inferred from a bare recital of facts. Section 13 of the Limitation Act did not assist the plaintiff, because the exclusion of time and the fiction of filing on the date of the pauper application operate only in the same proceeding when converted after rejection and payment of court-fee. A fresh suit filed later as an independent proceeding cannot claim that benefit. Section 3 of the Limitation Act therefore required dismissal once the plaint itself disclosed that the claim was out of time.

Conclusion: The suit was barred by limitation and the appeal failed.

---