JUDGMENT

Pontifex, J. - We are of opinion that neither the Limitation Act of 1871, nor that of 1877, extinguishes a debt. These Acts only bar or discharge the remedy. This we think is clear from the language of the Acts, and particularly from Sections 12 and 29 of the Act of 1871, and Sections 11 and 28 of the Act of 1877.

2. The difference between these Acts and the English Limitation Law is, that in India limitation need not be set up as a defence (Section 4 of the Act of 1871 and Section 4 of the Act of 1877), while in England, the defendant must expressly claim the operation of the Statute. Section 60 of the Contract Act, which was passed after the Limitation Act of 1871, also shows that the debt is not extinguished, but may be, insisted on for certain purposes; so likewise, if the creditor had a lien on the goods of his debtor on a general account, he would be entitled to hold the goods for a debt the recovery of which was barred by the Limitation Act. And probably it would be held that an executor would be allowed to retain out of a legacy a debt owing by the legatee to the testator, though its recovery was barred by the Act. But a difficult question arises by reason of the pas