An endorsement must meet specific legal requirements to provide a fresh period of limitation or constitute an express promise, as defined by the relevant acts.

1. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 167 of 1124 of the District Court of Kottayam are the appellants before us. The suit was based on Ext. A, an unregistered chitty udampady executed by the defendant in favour of the 1st plaintiff on 7-11-1107. The chitty terminated on 15- 7-1116. The suit was instituted on 20-8-1124. The date on which the cause of action arose was not specified in the plaint.

2. The lower court found that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the appellants concedes that the conclusion is correct but for Ext. Al, an endorsement on Ext. A made by the defendant and signed by him on 18-10 -1121. The endorsement reads as follows :

3. S.19 (1) of the Travancore Limitation Act (Act VI of 1100) provides: "Where, before the expiration of the, period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by some person through whom he derives title or liability, or by some person who is, either by operation of law or by contract, entrusted with the general management of the affairs of a family, in so far as such acknowledgment relates to transactions binding on such family, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed".

The claim, it is agreed, was barred by limitation prior to 18 -10 -1121 and it is not contended that Ext. Al will provide a fresh period of limitation from the said date under the provisions of S.19. The contention is that Ext. Al (earlier portion) amounts to an account stated and that a period of three years will hence be available from 1-1-1121 under Art.52 of the Travancore Limitation Act.

4. Art.52 of the Travancore Limitation Act (but for the addition of the Explanation) is in the same terms as Art.64 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908:

Table:#1

5. In Shamlal v. Gulabchand A.I.R. 1935 Nagpur 221 Subhedar, A. J. C., dealing with a similar contention said:

"The question for determination then is if Ext. P-1 could be regarded as an account settled. In my opinion the answer to this must be in the negative. Although the document recites that an account was made and Rs. 375 were found due on an old sarkat. Ext. P-1, cannot be regarded as 'accounts stated' within the meaning of Art.64 of the Limitation Schedule as on the face of it the document does not purport to contain accounts of that description".

Chitaley's summary of the decision is as follows:

"It was held that an'account stated' must on the face it purport to contain accounts, and that a document containing an entry by the creditor: 'Rupees 375 due on making accounts after repayments deducted,' and an entry by the debtor admitting such amount as due, is not an account stated within the meaning of this article". (The Indian Limitation Act, Vol. II, p. 1337)

We propose to assume, without deciding, that Ext. Al comes within the ambit of Art.52 of the Travancore Limitation Act.

6.In Bishum Chand v. Girdheri Lal A. I. R.1934 P. C. 147 Lord Wright said:

"The essence of an account stated is not the character of the items on one side or the other, but the fact that there are cross items of account and that the parties mutually agree the several amounts of each and by treating the items so agreed on the one side as discharging the items on the other side pro tanto, go on to agree that the balance only is payable. Such a transaction is in truth bilateral, and creates a new debt and a new cause of action. There are mutual promises, the one side agreeing to accept the amount of the balance of the debt as true (because there must in such cases be, at least in the end, a creditor to whom the balance is due) and to pay it, the other side agreeing the entire debt as at a certain figure and then agreeing that it has been discharged to such and such an extent, so that there will be complete satisfaction on payment o