1. The plaintiffs appellant instituted the" suit to recover a certain sum of money alleged; to be due on a hundi, dated 7th March 1903, and the question in the second appeal relates to limitation. The suit was instituted on the 13th November 1909, and, therefore, it is conceded by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar for the appellant that, unless he succeeded in establishing acknowledgment or part payment within the meaning of the law under Exhibits B and C-B being dated 29th September 1905 and C 19th July 1907--the suit will be barred. As regards B, which purports to be a letter written by the defendant, the first question that arises is whether there was any signature to it of the 1st defendant within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The parties are Nattukkottai Chetties and the 1st defendant wrote to the plaintiffs giving the name of his firm" at the top of the letter, but no signature was put at the foot of it. We have been referred to a number of cases and it seems to us that the decisions reported as Mathura Das v. Babu Lal 1 A. 683 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 477 and Mohesh Lal v. Busund Kumaree 6 C. 340 : 7 C.L.R. 121 : 3 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 222 bear out the contention o