Limitation Act acknowledgment need not promise payment; unauthorized co-defendant acknowledgment cannot bind another debtor.

An acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act need not contain an express promise to pay; its validity is tested by the statute's requirements rather than by importing a promise-to-pay element. An acknowledgment that merely admits the correctness of an account does not automatically require a stamp. Liability cannot be acknowledged by a co-defendant for another debtor without authority, and where dealings were shown only with one defendant and no authority or joint-family basis was proved, the acknowledgment could not bind the other defendant. The civil revision was dismissed, and the order was sustained on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act must contain a promise to pay or amount to a promise to pay; (ii) whether an acknowledgment of the correctness of an account requires a stamp to be valid and whether a co-defendant could acknowledge liability on behalf of the debtor.

Issue (i): whether an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Limitation Act must contain a promise to pay or amount to a promise to pay.

Analysis: An acknowledgment under Section 19 need not itself contain an express promise to pay. The correctness of an acknowledgment is to be judged by the requirements of the Limitation Act, and not by importing a promise-to-pay element into it.

Conclusion: The acknowledgment was not invalid merely because it did not contain a promise to pay.

Issue (ii): whether an acknowledgment of the correctness of an account requires a stamp to be valid and whether a co-defendant could acknowledge liability on behalf of the debtor.

Analysis: An acknowledgment intended only to admit the correctness of an account does not necessarily attract stamp liability. On the facts, the dealings were treated as dealings only with defendant 1, and there was no evidence that defendant 2 was authorised to sign an acknowledgment of defendant 1's liability or that the transactions related to the joint family.

Conclusion: The acknowledgment was unsupported against defendant 2, and the dismissal of the petition was justified.

Final Conclusion: The order was sustained on the facts, and the civil revision petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment sufficient for limitation need not contain a promise to pay, and one person cannot acknowledge another's liability without authority.

---