Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. When the judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Udaypal Singh v. Lakhmi Chand I.L.R. (1935) All. 261 and the judgment of the Privy Council in Rama Shah v. Lal Chand (1940) 1 M.L.J. 895 : L.R. 67 IndAp 160 : I.L.R.(1940) Lah. 470 are examined, it is quite clear that there is nothing in the judgment of the Judicial Committee to throw doubt on the long line of decisions of this Court referred to in Dosapati Ramayya v. Pattam Anjayya AIR1942Mad146 . The case of Rama Shah v. Lal Chand (1940) 1 M.L.J. 895 : L.R. 67 IndAp 160 : I.L.R. (1940) Lah. 470 had reference to Section 20 of the Limitation Act and there is nothing in the judgment which can be deemed to be by way of interpretation of Section 19, beyond the statement that Section 19, is not to be read as based upon the theory of implied promise. Section 19, applies to an acknowledgment of liability in writing and in deciding whether the words used constitute an acknowledgment, the Court can only have regard to the words used.

2. In the course of his judgment in Udaypal Singh v. Lakhmi Chand I.L.R. (1935) All. 261 Sulaiman C.J., observed:

It is equally obvious that where a payment