Limitation and acknowledgment principles: an endorsement on a chitty could not revive a debt already time-barred.

An endorsement on a chitty amount did not revive a claim already barred by limitation. An acknowledgment under Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act was ineffective because it was made after limitation had expired. The alternative argument that the endorsement constituted an account stated under Article 52 also failed, because a settled account cannot revive a wholly time-barred demand unless it amounts to a fresh enforceable promise. Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act required a written and signed promise to pay a barred debt, and the endorsement did not satisfy that requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the endorsement on the chitty amounting to an acknowledgment or account stated saved the suit from limitation, and whether it could be treated as an express promise supporting a barred debt.

Analysis: The suit had already become barred before the endorsement. An acknowledgment under Section 19(1) of the Travancore Limitation Act could not assist because it was made after expiry of limitation. The plea that the endorsement was an account stated under Article 52 also failed, since a settled account cannot revive a claim where the entire demand is already time-barred unless the settlement amounts to a fresh enforceable promise. Section 26 of the Travancore Contract Act permits enforcement only where there is a written and signed promise to pay a debt barred by limitation. The endorsement was not such an express promise, and where the whole claim is barred there is no consideration to support the settlement.

Conclusion: The endorsement did not save the claim, and the appeal failed.

---