JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J. The facts out of which this appeal has arisen are shortly as follows:— One Ghansham Das, a merchant, became insolvent. The receiver over his estate sold his book-debts as a means of realising the estate for the benefit of the creditors. The plaintiff's father purchased the book-debts and amongst them a debt supposed to be due by the defendants, Manohar Dass and Makhan Lal, for Rs. 1,276 odd. The present suit was brought to recover the amount of this debt, less by a sum of Rs. 76 odd, which had been paid by Manohar Dass and Makhan Lal, to the receiver. Amongst the defences pleaded was the plea of limitation, which is the plea which has been argued on both sides in this Court. It has to be admitted that the suit would be barred unless a post-card that was written on the 21st of February was a sufficient acknowledgment so as to give rise to a new period of limitation from that date. The post-card was written in reply to a demand by the plaintiff in respect of the debt. It is as follows:— “21st February, 1910, Notice. 2. In reply to your notice, dated 19th February, 1910, we write to you that we owe nothing to the shop styled “Moti Ram Bhojraj,” because we have paid (the amount of) a hundi for Rs. 1,200 (drawn on Baisakh Badi 5, in favour of Pandit Balmakund, payable fifty-one days after date), on account of Ghanshiam Das, proprietor of the shop aforesaid. The hundi was drawn by Ghanshiam Das. The payment was made on Jeth Sudi 9th, Sambat 1964. In addition (to the aforesaid sum) Rs. 76-2-3 were paid to Jwala Prasad, receiver, on Asarh Sudi 11th, 1965. Nothing is now due by us. If yon will take legal proceedings, you will be liable for damages and costs.” 3. In our opinion this is not an acknowledgment of liability for the debt now claimed from the defendants. It certainly cannot be said to be “an acknowledgment of liability for this debt made in writing and signed by the defendants.” Mr. Hamilton, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, contends that it ought to be read as “an acknowledgment of the debt coupled with the claim to a set-off” which would be sufficient, and he cites Explanation (I) to section 19 in support of this contention. Hamilton, on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant, contends that it ought to be read as “an acknowledgment of the debt coupled with the claim to a set-off” which would be sufficient, and he cites Explanation (I) to section 19 in support of this contention. In our opinion the post-card in question was not an acknowledgment coupled with a claim to a set-off. It was a direct and express repudiation of the debt giving details of the manner in which it had been discharged. It cannot be read as equivalent to the defendants writing that they admitted that they owed this debt but that they had a counterclaim or set-off against these defendants [See Triloki Nath v. Bhagwat Das,[1899] 19 A.W.N., 222]. On the evidence on the record it cannot be contended that the post-card, or the payment of Rs. 76-2-3 to the receiver, constituted a part-payment of principal Or interest under section 20 of the Limitation Act. 4. The only other question which has been raised in the present appeal is that the defendant, Makhan Lal, did not appeal against the decision of the court of first instance. The appellant says that the decree of the court of first instance ought to be restored as against Makhan Lal. We need not say any more on this point except to point out that the appellant did not make Makhan Lal a party to the present appeal. 5. In our opinion the appeal fails, and we accordingly dismiss it with costs.