In the absence of appropriation by the debtor or the creditor in any particular manner, the earliest credit would set off the oldest debit.

V. RAMASWAMI, J.:- The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff firm for recovery of a sum of Rs.8562-12-3 with interest and costs. The case of the plaintiff was that from 18-5-1953 till 17-9-1956 the defendant had dealing with the plaintiff, which consisted of the plaintiff advancing moneys in respect of goods imported by the defendant under his licence. Such goods, when imported, would be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff for an agreed rate and the invoice of each was credited to the account of the defendant. The plaintiff further contended that the amounts advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant were agreed to be repaid with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. In respect of such amount, the plaintiff claimed that there was due and payable by the defendant a sum of Rs.7146-1-9 for balance of principal and Rs.1,416-10-6 for interest, aggregating to Rs.8562-12-3. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit was not barred by limitation by reason of adjustments of credits made towards prior amounts due, and by reason of the letters of acknowledgment dated 2-11-1956 and 21-12-1956.

2. The defendant contended that the statement of account filed along with the plaint was not correct, that there were several items of debit in the statement of account which the defendant was not aware of, that the said account contained omissions of inumerable amounts of credit and that the prices in respect of each transaction were then and there received and adjusted. The defendant also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. During the trial, the defendant was asked to file a list showing the items which he considered as items of debit which the defendant was not aware of and also a list containing the amounts of credit. Accordingly, the defendant filed two lists. The lower court appointed a Commissioner to go into the transactions and report. The Commissioner held an enquiry and submitted his report. After a consideration of the entire evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant were true; but the advances made to the defendant were not all in respect of import of goods. The lower court also found that the accounts produced by the plaintiff were true, but that the defendant was entitled to credit in respect of a sum of Rupees 239-6-0 and another sum of Rs.150-10-0 in addition to the credits given by the plaintiff. But, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the entire plaint claim for the period prior to 10-12-1955 was barred by limitation and that as regards the claim for the period from 10-12-1955 to 17-9-1956, debit items had all been adjusted under A.8 (xxx) to A.8 (xxxvi), except a sum of Rs.12. In that view, the trial court dismissed the suit with costs.

4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit claim was barred by limitation, as the findings of the trial court was not challenged in other respects.

5. In the plaint, the plaintiff relied on two letters, Exs.A.25 and A.28, as letters acknowledging liability and saving the suit from the bar of limitation. The plaintiff also contended that the suit was not barred by limitation by reason of adjustments of credits made towards prior amounts due.

6. Ex.A.25 is a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, demanding the plaintiff to send the statement of account for the period from 1953 till the date of that letter. Ex.A.28 is another letter repeating the same demand for "the complete production of the statement of account and the documents called for" without any further delay. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant relied on these letters - as saving the suit from the bar of limitation. We do not find any acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act in these two letters. These letters merely call for the statement of account and do not acknowledge any liability. There could be no doubt, therefore, that