The law of limitation applicable to a suit is the Act in force on the date the suit is brought, not any earlier Act. The terms of the Act in force at the time the suit is brought apply, even to acknowledgments and part payments.

K. N. WANCHOO, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE two cases have been referred by a learned Single Judge to a Division bench for decision as an important question of law which is common to both of them arises therein. The learned Judge has formulated the question in these words: "whether an acknowledgment or part payment to be good and valid must have been made within the period prescribed by the law of limitation which was in force at the date the suit we brought, or it would also be good if it was made within the period of limitation which was in force at the time the acknowledgment or part payment was made or even if such acknowledgment or part payment was made during the special period of limitation permitted by subsequent Acts that is either under Section 4 of the Marwar Limitation Act of 1949 or under Section 9 of the Rajasthan Limitation Act, (Adaptation) Ordinance of 1950 or section 30 of the Limitation Act as applied to the State by Part B States laws Act 1951. "

( 2 ) HAVING formulated the question, the learned Judge has referred the entire case because there is no other point of dispute between the parties except the question of limitation.

( 3 ) WE may briefly give the facts of the two eases to understand the implication of the question referred to us. In Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 313/1955, (hereinafter called the appeal), the facts are these. The Khata, out of which the suit has arisen, was executed on 9-10-1941. At that time, the Marwar Limitation Act, 1945, (hereinafter called the 1945 Act)was in force, the period of limitation in that Act for such suits being six years. There was part payment on 9-4-1947. Then from 27-3-1949 came the Marwar limitation Act, 1949 (hereinafter called the 1949 Act ). By this Act, the period of limitation in certain class of cases, including this, was shortened as compared to the 1945 Act and there was a saving clause in this Act, namely Section 4. Then on 25-1-1950 came the Rajasthan Limitation Act, (Adaptation) Ordinance of 1950 (hereinafter called the 1950 Act ). It provided a saving clause in Section 9 to cover cases where the period of limitation was shortened as compared to the earlier Acts of various Covenanting states repealed by it. Finally came the Indian Limitation Act which was applied by the Part B States Laws Act of 1951 (hereinafter called the 1951 Act ). This Act came into force on 1-4-1951 and contained a saving clause in Section 30 of the Limitation Act as applied by it. A second part payment was made on 28-111951 and the present suit was brought on 11-8-1953. The question that has arisen on these facts is whether the suit was within time on the date on which it was brought.

( 4 ) IN Civil Revision No. 40/1956 (hereinafter called the revision), the facts are these. The cause of action arose on 6-6-1944 when the 1945 Act was in force. The first part payment was made on 19-6-1949 when the 1949 Act was in force. The second part payment was made on 31-5-1950 when the 1950 Act was in force. The suit was filed on 28-5-1953 when the 1951 Act was in force. The question that arises is whether in these circumstances, the suit was within limitation on the date on which it was filed.

( 5 ) BEFORE we consider the particular facts of these cases, we should like to make certain general observations as to limitation which will be of help in the peculiar circumstances that have arisen on account of three Acts of Limitation being brought into force in quick succession within three years from 1949 to 1951. Each of these Acts had a saving clause which we shall consider at the appropriate moment. The first general observation which we wish to make is that the law of limitation which is to apply to a suit brought on a particular date is the Act in force on the date on which the suit is brought and not any earlier Act. So far as this is concerned, we are of opinion that the law is well settled. In Jeth Mal v. Amb Singh, ilr (1955 ). 5 Raj 334: (AIR 1955 Raj 97) (A), the settled law on th