The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the authority to execute acknowledgments for extending limitation under the Limitation Act, as well as the concept of ratification and its applicability to acts performed during a person's minority.

1. This is a suit for Rs. 2,500 based on an akada dated 21-1-1913 executed by the defendants' father Manaji in favour of the plaintiffs' father Ramji. The document is Ex. p-8. The claim was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals.

2. The history of the subsequent transactions is this. On 28-31916 accounts were made up and the defendants' father Manaji executed an acknowledgment Ex. P-9. Rupees 1350 were then found due. Manaji died some time after this on 3-8-1919 and left defendants 1 to 4 (his sons) as his heirs. He also left two widows, Mt. Gangu and Mt. Saru, who were the lawful guardians of the sons who were then minors.

3. On 21-3-1919 accounts were again made up and Rs. 1526-4-0 were found due. The two guardians, Mt, Gangu and Mt. Saru, thereupon executed an acknowledgment Ex. P-10 on behalf of the minors. On 7-8-1922 accounts were again made up and Rs. 1866 are said to have been found due. In this case a document Ex. P-11 was executed by one Pandurang, the paternal uncle of the defendants. The main question in this case is whether Pandurang had authority to execute this document on behalf of the minors. On 26-2-1925 accounts were again made up and this time, Rs. 2271-10-9 were found due. Pandurang again executed an acknowledgment. This acknowledgment is Ex. P-12. When the next settling of accounts took place, viz., on 9-2-1928, defendant 1 had attained majority.

4. According to the plaintiffs, Rs. 2829-2-3 were found due and this time the acknowledgment Ex, P-13 was executed by defendant 1. He signed on his own behalf and on behalf of his three minor brothers. Three years later, on 26-1-1931, accounts were again made up and this time Rs. 2722-1-3 are said to have been due. By then defendant 2 had also attained majority and accordingly the acknowledgment Ex. P-14 was signed by defendants 1 and 2 for themselves and by defendant 1 on behalf of his two minor brothers. The sum of Rs. 2722-1-3 was reached after giving credit for a repayment of Rs. 750 which was made at the same time. It is a matter of dispute whether this payment preceded the settlement of accounts or succeeded. So far as the document Ex. P-14 is concerned, it shows the total due, next a deduction of Rs. 750 and then the balance which we have set out above. Then follow the signatures.

5. On 17-11934 there was a further settlement of accounts and this time Rs. 3458-10-6 are said to have been due. By this time all four defendants had attained majority and so they all signed the acknowledgment Ex. P-18.

6. Three years later, on 6-1-1937, the defendants applied to the Debt Conciliation Board and this debt was included their application EX. P-16. The plaintiffs refused to conciliate, and accordingly a certificate under Section 15, Debt Conciliation Act, was issued against them. On 6-1-1940 the present suit was filed.

7. A number of defences were taken to the action. As this is a second appeal we do not intend to deal with all the points raised because it is possible to decide the matter on the points with which we intend to deal. The first point is whether Pandurang had authority to execute the acknowledgments in the years 1922 and 1925.

8. Under Section 19, Limitation Act, an acknowledgment for purposes of that section means one signed either personally or ''by ''an agent duly authorised in this behalf.'' Section 21(1) of the Act indicates who these agents are. The section runs, The expression ''agent duly authorised in this behalf'', in Section 19...shall in the case of a person under disability, include his lawful guardian,...or manager, or an agent duly authorised by such guardian,...or manager to sign the acknowledgment.

9. It is evident from this that only a lawful guardian or manager can sign an acknowledgment for purposes of Section 19, or in their absence an agent duly authorised either by the lawful guardian or by the manager. Accordingly, a de facto guardian will not do. This point was considered by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Chennappa v. Onk