Limitation for minors and partnership liability: acknowledgment can restart time, and family assets may answer for the debt.

An acknowledgment of liability made before the special limitation period for a minor expires can validly trigger a fresh period under Section 19, because the limitation scheme treats Sections 4 to 25 as operating with Section 6's disability period. The court also treated the contracting party as the joint Hindu family, not the individual karta, so liability could attach to family assets on the evidence of the business name and documents. Interest was upheld at 6 per cent, including pendente lite interest, because the partnership assets and monies had continued to be used after dissolution. The decree was affirmed in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an acknowledgment of liability made during the extended period available to a minor under the Limitation Act could start a fresh period of limitation under Section 19; (ii) whether the partnership was with the individual defendant or with the joint Hindu family, and whether the decree could run against the family assets; (iii) whether the award and rate of interest were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether an acknowledgment of liability made during the extended period available to a minor under the Limitation Act could start a fresh period of limitation under Section 19.

Analysis: The limitation scheme was read as a whole, with Section 3 operating subject to Sections 4 to 25. In the case of a minor, Section 6 fixed the operative period for suit after cessation of disability, and the period was not treated as expired until that special period ran out. An acknowledgment made before that expiry therefore satisfied Section 19 and commenced a fresh period of limitation. The contrary view in earlier decisions was not accepted.

Conclusion: The acknowledgment was valid and the suit was within time, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the partnership was with the individual defendant or with the joint Hindu family, and whether the decree could run against the family assets.

Analysis: On the evidence, the partner was found to be the joint family firm rather than the individual karta. The surrounding circumstances, the business name, and documentary references supported the conclusion that the family, through the karta, was the real contracting party. Liability could therefore attach to the family assets to the extent found.

Conclusion: The finding against the joint family was upheld, in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether the award and rate of interest were sustainable.

Analysis: The allowance of interest was treated as reflecting the general partnership principle that a partner using partnership assets after dissolution must account for the benefit obtained. The rate of 6 per cent was not disturbed, and interest pending suit was also upheld because the defendants had continued to use the partnership monies and assets.

Conclusion: The award of interest was sustained, in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The decree was affirmed in full and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For limitation purposes, an acknowledgment made before the expiry of the suit period applicable to a minor under Section 6 can validly trigger Section 19, and where partnership assets are retained and used after dissolution, interest may be awarded in accordance with settled partnership principles.

---