The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acknowledgment of liability by the defendants in an agreement saved the suit from being barred by limitation. Additionally, the judgment emphasized that the liability could not be fastened on the partnership firm based on the promissory notes, and decreed only against the executants of the notes.

KHALID, J.:- Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are the appellants in this appeal. Original 1st defendant died pending suit. 4th defendant is his mother, 5th defendant his wife and defendants 6 and 7 his minor children. The suit from which this appeal arises was filed to recover amounts due to the plaintiff on 5 promissory notes. The plaintiff's case was that the amounts as per the promissory notes were taken for the purpose of, a partnership firm, K.M.S. Bus Service by name run by defendants 1, 2 and 3 of which the 1st defendant was the Managing Partner. Four promissory notes were executed by the 1st defendant and the 5th promissory note by defendants 1 and 2. Defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation and in any case the partnership firm cannot be made liable for the promissory note amounts. The trial court held that the plea of limitation was not available to the defendants since there was an acknowledgment of the liability as per the promissory notes by defendants 1, 2 and 3 in an agreement dated 27-12-1970 to which they were parties. It was also held that all the defendants were liable for the suit amount. Hence this appeal.

2. The details of the promissory notes are as given below;

1) 15-12-1968 by D1 for

Rs. 12,000/

2) 10-3-1968 by D1 for

Rs. 20,000/

3) 25-4-1968 by D1 for

Rs. 20,000/

4) 15-5-1968 by D1 for

Rs. 12,000/

5) 31-10-1968 by D1 and D2 for

Rs. 22,000/-

Though promissory notes Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were executed in favour of the plaintiff's mother, wife, sister and mother (?). all of them were subsequently endorsed by the respective promisees in favour of the plaintiff. It is not disputed that the suit will be in time, if the agreement Ext. A8 contains an acknowledgment of the liability. The appellants' case is that it does not amount to an acknowledgment in law. Ext. A8 is an agreement entered into by defendants 1 to 4 in the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 admitting their liability to pay the amounts due to the plaintiff. The appellants' counsel submits that the statements contained in Ext. A8 will not in law create an acknowledgment of the liability to save limitation. We will examine the statements contained in Ext. A8 presently to find out whether it amounts to an acknowledgment.

3. The court below has discussed the genuineness of, Ext. A8. P. Ws. 1 and 2 have proved it. They were present at the time when the agreement was executed. We do not find any reason why this finding should not be confirmed.

4. Ext. A8 is dated 27-12-1970. There are two schedules to the agreement. A schedule are the assets and B schedule the liabilities. Item No. 5 in the B schedule is the debt due to the plaintiff. The executants of the agreement agreed that the total liabilities are as shown in schedule B and that No. 2 will have no liability over the existing liabilities and further debts incurred by Nos. 1, 3 and 4. if any. P. W. 1 has deposed that liability No. 5 shown in the B schedule represents the promissory note amounts and chitty amounts. The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant have not been examined. The 3rd defendant who was a young boy did not deny the existence of the promissory notes but pleaded ignorance why they were executed. The evidence of P.W. 1 and P. W. 2 is to the effect that the liability shown as No. 5 represents promissory notes amount also. On a consideration of the evidence in this case, it has to be held that the court below was justified in holding that defendants 1 to 3 have acknowledged their liability to pay amounts due to the plaintiff which include the promissory notes amounts also and that the suit is not barred by limitation. We confirm this finding.

5. What remains then is the question whether all the defendants are liable for the promissory note amounts. The court below relied upon Section 19 of the Partnership Act to hold that the promissory notes were executed and amounts raised for the partnership firm consisting of defendants 1, 2 and 3 and therefore all the defendants were liable for the amou