JUDGMENT : This is an appeal by the 1st defendant from the decree in a suit for money. The 1st defendant wanted to have pattuvaravu dealing with the plaintiff Bank and defendants 1 and 2 accordingly executed a promissory note Ext. C, for Rupees 5000 and an agreement Ext. B dated 20-3-1946 containing the terms and conditions of such pattuvarvu dealings, with a limit of Rupees 5000/-. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 2899-4-0 as the balance due on the date of the plaint. The 1st defendant contested the suit. His contentions were that the borrowings from the bank ended on 28-5-1946, that a sum of Rs. 5857-8-9 was due from him on that date, that he had pledged 6400 Ibs. of tea worth Rs. 8000 with the plaintiff as additional security, that he had paid Rs. 1000 on 8-7-1948 and Rs. 4,558-5-0 on 20-8-1950, that no amount was due to the bank from him, that the bank had not accounted for the tea or its value and that he was entitled to get Rs. 8000 from the plaintiff as the plaintiff had sold the tea and appropriated the sale proceeds. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The court below overruled the defence contentions except as regards payment made which were admitted by the plaintiff and decreed the suit as prayed for. 2. The only point pressed in appeal is that of limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the last item of borrowing was on 24-7-1946, that thereafter the defendant was only repaying amounts to the bank and as the suit was instituted only on 21-2-1952 i. e., beyond a period of three years from the date of the last borrowing, the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff relied on certain acknowledgments made by the 1st defendant to save the suit from the bar of limitation. The learned Judge overruled the plea of limitation, holding that the last payment having been made by the 1st defendant in 1950 the suit was not barred by limitation, as it was filed within 2 years of 1950. It is true that the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be supported as the transaction was not in the nature of a mutual, open and current account. Even the plaintiff had no such case and the view taken by the learned Judge is clearly wrong. It is true that the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be supported as the transaction was not in the nature of a mutual, open and current account. Even the plaintiff had no such case and the view taken by the learned Judge is clearly wrong. This does not mean that the appellant is entitled to succeed. As stated earlier the transaction commenced with the execution of the promissory note Ext. C on 20-3-1946 along with the agreement Ext. B. The copy of the plaintiffs account Ext. D shows that the 1st defendant borrowed Rs. 5000 from the plaintiff on that date. There were subsequent payments to as well as borrowingd from the plaintiff. The amount sued for represents the balance on such transactions. The suit was filed on the basis of the promissory note also as seen from paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint. Under the Travancore Limitation Act which was in force till 1-4-1951 the plaintiff had a period of 6 years for suing on the promissory note. The Indian Limitation Act which provides for only 3 years became applicable to this State on 1-4-1951 by reason of the Part B States (Laws) Act. 1951 but this act added a new section to the Indian Limitation Act as section 30, which provides, "Notwithstanding anything herein contained, any suit for which the period of limitation prescribed by this Act is shorter than the period of limitation prescribed by any law corresponding to this Act in force in a Part B State which is repealed by the Part B States (Laws) Act, 1951, may be instituted within the period of two years next after the coming into force of this Act in that Part B States or within the period prescribed for such suit by such corresponding law, whichever period expires first." 3. The suit having been filed within two years of this date is thus clearly within time. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the question whether there are valid acknowledgments extending the period of limitation. It follows that the plea of limitation must be overruled. 4. No other point was pressed in appeal. We therefore confirm the decree of the trial court and dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.