Limitation by acknowledgment: later debt renewals and confirmations extended time and bound guarantors in a bank recovery claim.

A fresh period of limitation arises only where payment or acknowledgment is proved to have been made by the person liable, or by an authorised agent, within time. Bank entries alone were insufficient to establish that disputed deposits were made by the borrower, and the bank bore the burden of proving that fact, particularly after his death. The borrower's later acknowledgment and renewal documents executed in 1992 and 1994 confirmed the outstanding liability and extended limitation. On that basis, the debt was treated as duly acknowledged within time, and the acknowledgment also bound the guarantors. The suit was therefore within limitation and the guarantors' challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for recovery was within limitation on the basis of the subsequent deposits and acknowledgments, and whether the bank had to prove that the deposits were made by the borrower or his duly authorised agent.

Analysis: A fresh period of limitation arises only when payment or acknowledgment is shown to have been made by the person liable or by an authorised agent within the prescribed period. The entries in the bank records were not sufficient by themselves to establish that the disputed deposits were made by the borrower, especially after his death, and the bank bore the burden of proving that fact. However, the borrower had executed later acknowledgment and renewal documents in 1992 and 1994, confirming the outstanding liability, and those acknowledgments extended limitation. The bank records and oral evidence established that the debt stood acknowledged within time, and the acknowledgment operated against the guarantors as well.

Conclusion: The suit was held to be within limitation and the challenge by the guarantors failed.

---