JUDGMENT

1. These are two appeals against the decision dated 26th October 1929, passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge of Sitapur, decreeing the plaintiff's claim against defendant 1 alone. They arise out of a suit based upon a pro-note (Ex. 2) dated 13th July 1923,, executed by Chaudhri Badshah Husain, defendant 2 in favour of Ram Sarup, plaintiff. On 19th February 1926, Chaudhari Badshah Husain executed a deed of gift (Ex. 3) in respect of his property in favour of his sons making them liable to pay all his existing debts.

2. The plaintiff's case was that under the terms of the deed, Ex. 3, Chaudhari Ejaz Husain defendant 1 who is one of the sons of Chaudhari Badshah Husain was made liable to pay the money due under the aforesaid pro-note. It was further alleged that on 6th July 1926, Chaudhri Ejaz Husain executed another pro-note for Rs. 8,200 in the plaintiff's favour in lieu of his father's pro-note dated 13tbv July 1923.

3. The suit as originally instituted was based upon the pro-note dated 6th July 1926 and was directed against Ejaz Husain alone. Subsequently it was discovered that the pro-note dated 6th July 1926 was inadmissible in evidence for want of proper stamp. The plaintiff thereupon applied to amend the plaint by-basing the claim upon the original liability arising under the pro-note dated 13th July 1923 and also asked permission to join Chaudhari Badshah Husain as a defendant. The application for amendment was allowed by the learned-Subordinate Judge.

4. The suit was contested by both the defendants on various grounds which included a plea about the claim being barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge has rejected all the pleas raised in defence and decreed the claim, against Chaudhari Ejaz Husain, defendant 1.

5. Appeal No. 5 of 1930 is the principal appeal filed by Chaudhari Ejaz Husain. Only two contentions have been urged in support of this appeal, namely, (1) that the plaintiff's suit on the basis of the pro-note dated 13th July 1923 was barred by limitation and (2) that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in granting the plaintiff's application for amendment. The suit was instituted on 30th July 1928, the claim therefore based upon the pro-note Ex. 2 dated 13th July 1923 is on the face of it barred by time. The plaintiff however pleaded that limitation was saved, under Section 19, Lim. Act, by reason of an acknowledgment by Badshah Husain contained in the deed of gift dated 19th February 1926. The learned Subordinate Judge has upheld the plaintiff's plea and held that the admission contained in the deed of gift, Ex. 3, constitutes a valid acknowledgment under Section 19, Lim. Act. Badshah Husain in the body of this document says:

There is the following debt for the payment of which my sons the donees are made liable in the following way.

6. In the list of debts given at the foot of the document there is an entry to the following effect:

----------------------------------------------------------------- Name of Person to whom pay- Amount Donee ment will be made ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ejaz Husain Babu Kishun Kumar of Khan Grant Khair Andesh Rs. 8,861 Nagam. -----------------------------------------------------------------

7. It has been urged that the entry which we have reproduced above does not relate to the pro-note in suit which is in favour of Babu Ram Sarup, but to some other debt for which Badshah Husain was liable to Babu Kishun Kumar. Bjaz Husain, defendant 1, even went into the witness box and undertook to say that a debt was due under a pro-note to Kishun Kumar and that he had paid about Rs. 9,250 to him a year after the execution of the deed of gift. He admitted that the pro-note in question had been returned to him, but he said that he had thrown it away or had torn it off and was therefore unable to produce it. The learned Subordinate Judge describes this statement as a lie. We have no hesitation in agreeing with the learned Subordin