JUDGMENT

1. The circumstances under which the present appeal has arisen are as follows: The plaintiff is the proprietor of a firm of bone dealers in Benares called Abdul Hamid and Sons. The defendants carry on a business in boner which goes by the name of Bengal Bone Mills in Calcutta. It appears that there had been dealings between the parties for some years; and in January 1913, according to the plaintiff, Rs. 1,654 were due to the plaintiff from the defendant' firm. The defendants had also dealings in bone with the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, of Benares. The plaintiff's father was the Manager of this Company and after his death the plaintiff was elected the Manager of the Company. The plaintiff's allegation is that his firm, Abdul Hamid and Sons, had nothing whatever to do with the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, yet the defendants debited the plaintiff with a sum of Rs. 1,497-7-6 alleged to have been due to the defendants from the aforesaid Company and deducting the amount from Rs. 1,654 due to the plaintiff, sent him Rs. 156-8-6 in payment of his claim on the 17th of January 1913. The defendants had no justification for doing so and hence the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 1,497-7-6 with interest by way of damages. The present suit was instituted on the 14th of January 1916. The only pleas in defence with which we are concerned in this appeal are, (1) that the plaintiff was only an agent of the Muslim Bone Company and supplied their goods to the appellants and, therefore, nothing was due to him, and (2) that the suit was barred by limitation. The first Court came to the conclusion that the bones were really sent by the plaintiff as the Manager of the Muslim Bone Company and not as a representative of a distinct firm known by the came of Abdul Hamid and Sons and consequently the defendants very rightly debited the plaintiff with the amount due to them from the Company. On the second plea it same to the conclusion that the items claimed are up to the 13th January 1913, that "no payment had been made by the defendants-acknowledging their liability to the plaintiff within the period of three years u/s 19 of Act IX of 1908, the suit is barred by the three years' limitation."

2. It further held that the payment of Rs. 156-8-6 did not amount to an acknowledgment u/s 19 of Act IX of 1908 and, therefore, the suit was barred by time. It accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal, by the plaintiff, the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the two firms Abdul Hamid and Sons and the Muslim Bone Company, Limited, were separate and "the defendants had no power to dictate to Abdul Hamid and Sons and tell them that they were the same thing as Muslim Bone Company, Limited." He does not seem to have considered the question of limitation of any importance. In the result he decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants come here in second appeal. The question of agency was not seriously pressed and in fact could not be so pressed having regard to the distinct finding of the lower Appellate Court mentioned above. The point of limitation, however, has been strenuously argued by the learned Counsel and the learned Vakil respectively who appeared on behalf of the parties. It was contended that the letter of the 17th January 1913 forwarding Rs. 156 8 6 to the plaintiff in full satisfaction of the amount due to them did not amount either to an acknowledgment of a right u/s 19 of the Limitation Act, nor did it amount to a part-payment of the principal within the meaning of Section 20 of the said Act and could not, therefore, operate to give a fresh start to the period of limitation which had, at the latest, commenced to run on the 13th of January 1913 when the last item was received. If this contention of the defendants is correct it is quite clear that the present suit is barred by limitation.

3. We have examined the letter sent by the defendants to the plaintiff and the memorandum of account enclosed therein, and we find t