A receipt can serve as an acknowledgment of an earlier debt and extend limitation for a suit based on the earlier debt, provided that it satisfies the conditions laid down in Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

NIGAM, J. :-The plaintiff Daulatram Ruchiram Chablani filed suit No. 19 of 1951 in the Court of Civil Judge, Malihabad, Lucknow on 13th February, 1951 against Nawin Chandra Paul Misra claiming a decree for Rs. 12,170. An amendment of the plaint was allowed by the trial Court on 26-10-1951.

2. The plaintiff alleges (in his amended plaint) that in the first week of January 1947 the defendant began borrowing money from the plaintiff. On 1st April, 1950 all advances were added up and after taking more cash the defendant executed a pronote and a receipt for Rs. 11,280 promising to pay the amount with interest at 9 per cent. The plaintiff gave details of the sums advanced. One item was a sum of Rs. 7,000 paid in cash in the first week of January 1947. The plaintiff further pleaded that if the pronote was not admissible in evidence, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree on the basis of the original advances which had been acknowledged four times as mentioned in the plaint, on one occasion by the receipt dated 1-4-1948. The plaintiff claimed a decree for this sum of Rs. 11,280 principal amount advanced and Rs. 890 interest accrued. The cause of action was stated to have accrued on 1-4-1950 (the advance of the loan, promise of interest and execution of receipt and pronote).

3. The plaintiff thus based his claim on a fresh contract on 1-4-1950 on which date "more cash" had been advanced but in the alternative based his claim on the original advance of Rs 7,000 (with which alone we are concerned in this reference) acknowledged in the receipt dated 1-4-1948 (which is the only acknowledgment relied upon before us).

4. In his final written-statement dated 27th November 1951 the defendant denied the plaint case and suggested that the defendant had not taker any loan from the plaintiff.

5. The learned Civil Judge framed five issues, three on 23-7-1951 and two on 4-12-1951.

6. In his statement, the plaintiff stated that on 1-4-1948 the defendant had paid Rs. 700 as interest on the previous loan and had executed receipt for Rs. 7000 (Ext. 18) an lieu of the principal amount previously advanced. P.W. 5 Soloman Benjamin Elias says that no cash was paid in his presence when Ext. 18 was executed. The defendant denied having executed Ext. 18.

7. The learned Civil Judge held that the payments alleged by the plaintiff were proved and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant filed this appeal. When the appeal came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court, two issues were remitted to the trial Court for findings. These issues are :-

"1 (a) Assuming that the amount of seven thousand rupees was advanced as a loan in January, 1947, as alleged by the plaintiff is the plaintiffs claim in respect of this sum of seven thousand rupees within limitation in view of the allegations contained in paragraph 2(a) of the plaint ?

(b) Whether Ext. 10 the letter dated the 16th of September, 1947, Ext. 18 the receipt dated the 1st of April, 1948 and Ext. 2 the receipt dated the 1st of April, 1950 constitute a valid acknowledgment of the subsisting liability in respect of the debt of seven thousand rupees due from the defendant to the plaintiff ?

8. We are of opinion that it would perhaps have been better if the Bench had decided all questions of fact relating to receipt Ext. 18 namely, whether Ext. 18 was proved to have been executed by the defendant, whether any money had been paid by either party to the other at the time Ex. 18 was executed, whether in fact any sum of rupees seven thousand had been lent by the plaintiff to defendant in January 1947 and whether the liability to repay this debt still subsisted on 1st April, 1948, rather than entered upon the question of law on assumptions, which on scrutiny may not be found to be justified.

9. In his findings, the learned Civil Judge answered the first issue remitted in the affirmative. He also held that receipt Ext. 18 alone constituted a valid acknowledgment of the subsisting liability in respect of the debt of