The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an unequivocal and express acknowledgment of liability, and the burden of proof on the creditor to prove the acknowledgment within the limitation period.

1. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 19.08.1997 in A.S.No.95 of 1996 passed by the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.1996 in O.S.No.410 of 1992 passed by the Learned Additional Sub Judge, Cuddalore.

2. The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, while placing the Judgment in Appeal A.S.No.95 of 1996 on 19.08.1997, in paragraph 14, has, inter alia, observed that in regard to the first claim of Rs.10,000/- [being the balance of advance amount paid by the Respondent/Plaintiff to the Appellant/Defendant on 28.08.1989 on which it is seen that Ex.A.1 that a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to the Defendants] that there is no acknowledgement in Ex.A.3 [Appellant/Defendant's reply lawyer notice addressed to the Respondent/Plaintiff's lawyer] excepting the mention of two admitted facts namely (1) that Rs.10,000/-was paid to the Defendant on 28.8.1989 and the other (2) that Defendant repaid Rs.10,000/-on 13.9.1989. We cannot merely infer that the balance amount would only be due and held that what was contained in Ex.A.3 was only on admission of the pre-existing liability and not a subsisting, liablity, which is vital to prove an acknowledgement and further that there is no acknowledgement of subsisting liability under Ex.A.3 and that the claim is barred.

3. In regard to the second claim of Rs.20,000/- based on Ex.A.4-Pronote dated 05.09.1991, the First Appellate Court has held that the signature of the Appellant/Defendant in the Pronote when specifically was denied, the Plaintiff should prove it by the expert opinion and this was not done and opined that it was unsafe to rely upon the evidence of P.W.2 to come to a proper conclusion and accordingly found that the Ex.A.4 -Pronote was not proved satisfactorily.

4. As regards the third claim viz., a sum of Rs.5,350/- purportedly due under Ex.A.6-Chit dated 28.08.1989 the First Appellate Court has held that the hand chit cannot be safely relied on so as to construe it as a valid instrument and also the signature of the Appellant/Defendant in that chit was disputed, it was not sent to any expert and properly proved and no attestor was also found as per Ex.A.6 and held that the claim was not proved.

5. In so far as the fourth claim, amounting to Rs.6,000/-, reportedly due Ex.A.5-Hand Chit dated 20.09.1990 purportedly to have been executed by the Appellant/Defendant is concerned, the First Appellate Court has come to a consequent conclusion that there was a disputed signature of the Defendant in the chit and that the lower Court has accepted the signature by comparing it with the Appellant/Defendant's signature in Ex.A.1 and also that the Courts cannot take the role of an Expert etc. and as opined that it was highly unsafe to compare a signature in the nacked eye and come to a conclusion and held that the circumstances under which the Respondent/Plaintiff has got Ex.A.1, a security and Ex.A.4 a Pronote in the same year raise about as to how he could advance a sum of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,350 towards hand chits and held that Exs.A.4 to A.6 have not been proved factually and that the claim of Ex.A.1 was barred by limitation and allowed the Appeal with costs thereby setting aside the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit with costs.

6. At the time of the Second Appeal, this Court has formulated the following Substantial Questions of Law 1 and 2 for consideration:

"1. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation on the ground that the reply notice sent by the respondent's lawyer, does not contain the respondent's signature and is hence of no consequence?

2. Whether the Lower Appellate Court is correct in dismissing the suit on the ground it is barred by limitation, without reference to the respondent's admission of her liability in the reply notice?"

T