The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acknowledgment of liability by a receiver can be valid and save a suit from being barred by limitation, even as against other defendants.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The main question argued in this second appeal is one of limitation. The suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 709-7-0 due in respect of dealings had with the first and second defendants who carried on business under the name of Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill. The claim would be admittedly ramayya. barred by limitation but for an acknowledgment of liability contained in the letter Ex. F executed by the first defendant on the 28th October, 1926. The second defendant, who is the appellant in this second appeal, resists the claim on the ground that Ex. F is not binding on him on two grounds: (1) The letter was intended to be executed by both the defendants but it is only signed by the first defendant and therefore inoperative as against him (second defendant). (2) On the date of Ex. F there was a decree for dissolution of partnership made in O.S. No. 244 of 1923 and the first defendant could no longer act for him.

2. The first contention can be easily disposed of. Though the document was intended to be executed by two persons, at the time of the execution it was agreed that it would be enough if the first defendant executed it as he was the receiver appointed in the said suit and the letter was signed by him as receiver. The view taken by the lower Court in this behalf is correct and I see no reason to differ from it.

3. To appreciate the second contention a few facts may be necessary. O.S. No. 244 of 1923 was a suit for dissolution of partnership of the said Seetharamanjaneya Rice Mill and in that suit an application was made on the 5th September, 1923, for the appointment of a receiver by the second defendant who was the plaintiff in the said action. The petition ran thus:

For the reasons set forth in the affidavit filed therewith, the plaintiff prays for the appointment of a receiver for collecting the assets due to the suit rice mill from others and for payment of the debts due to others and do other acts.

4. The first defendant in paragraph 3 of his counter-affidavit filed therein stated that in the matter of recovery of the assets due to the firm and in the matter of payment of the debts due by the firm he would carefully attend to them without allowing them to be barred by time and he would recover the debt by filing suits, etc. On the strength of the undertaking given by the first defendant the plaintiff agreed to the appointment of the first defendant as receiver. The order of the Court was " first defendant appointed receiver accordingly", that is. in accordance with the terms of the petition. Therefore the effect of this appointment was that the first defendant was appointed receiver for collecting the assets due to the suit rice Krishnayya mill from others and for payment of the debts due to others Seetha and to do other acts which I interpret as meaning all acts ramayya, necessary and incidental for the realisation of the assets and for the payment of debts due by the firm. This was on the 5th October, 1923. The first defendant was discharged from the office of the receiver on the 19th February, 1929. It was during this interval that Ex. F came into existence. The recitals in Ex. F are to the effect that the plaintiff pressed for payment of the debt on the ground that it would be barred by limitation but as the first defendant had not the account books before him, as he could not verify the amount due and as soon as the account books were received from Court he would pay the principal and interest which may be found due in accordance with the account without having any regard to limitation. There can be no doubt that this letter operates as an acknowledgment of liability. The question is whether the first defendant as receiver is entitled to acknowledge this debt, and if so, would it save the suit from being barred by limitation even as against the second defendant? The order appointing receiver distinctly authorises the receiver to make payments of the debts due to others by the firm. If the recei