Judgment :- 1. The only point for decision in this second appeal is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The Courts below have concurrently held that it is, and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has therefore preferred this second appeal. 2. The plaintiff had deposited money in a Savings Bank Account with the defendant, a joint stock company carrying on banking business at Ernakulam, and on 22 61953 a sum of Rs. 162114 7 was due to the plaintiff. He sued for recovery of the same with interest. The defendant contended that the plaintiff owed money to the bank under a promissory note and that the sum due under the deposit was adjusted against the promissory note amount leaving a small balance due to the defendant. The plaintiff's case that the promissory note was executed to enable the agent of the Bank to make a temporary adjustment and that the note was returned duly discharged was accepted by the courts below. The finding was that there was no amount due to the defendant which could be adjusted against the plaint claim. However the suit was dismissed holding that it was barred under Art.60 of the Limitation Act which prescribes a period of limitation of only three years from the date of demand. The plaintiff's case that the suit was saved from the bar of limitation by an acknowledgment made in the reply notice, Ex. P-2, was not accepted by the Courts below. 3. It is not seriously disputed by the appellant that Art.60 of the Limitation Act governs the case. The plaintiff made a demand on 27-1-1953 by a notice, Ex. D-4. The suit was filed only on 14 61956, i. e., beyond three years from the date of demand. Unless there is a valid acknowledgment the suit must be barred by limitation. 4. The appellant relies on the reply notice, Ex. P-2, sent by the defendant on 24 61956. The contention of the respondent is two-fold, (1) that the plaintiff is not entitled to rely on Ex. P-2 as it was not relied on as an acknowledgment in the plaint and (2) that Ex. P-2 does not amount to an acknowledgment under S.19 of the Limitation Act. 5. As regards the first objection, it must be stated that the plaint states that the cause of action arose on 24 61953, i.e., the date of Ex. P-2. P-2 as it was not relied on as an acknowledgment in the plaint and (2) that Ex. P-2 does not amount to an acknowledgment under S.19 of the Limitation Act. 5. As regards the first objection, it must be stated that the plaint states that the cause of action arose on 24 61953, i.e., the date of Ex. P-2. On the averments in the plaint the suit is not barred so that Order VII R.6, Code of Civil Procedure, may notarise. It may also be stated that the plaintiff has specifically referred to Ex. P-2 in Para.22 of the plaint. The relevant facts having been stated in the plaint, the omission to say that Ex. P-2 is an acknowledgment is not fatal. We therefore hold that the plaintiff is entitled to rely on Ex. P-2 if it otherwise satisfies the requirements of a valid acknowledgment. 6. The more important question is whether Ex. P-2 is an acknowledgement in law. If Ext. P-2 is an acknowledgment of liability coupled with a refusal to pay it amounts to a valid acknowledgment, for the purpose of saving the claim from limitation. On the other hand if it is a repudiation of liability it will not amount to an acknowledgment. 7. Ex. P-2 states: "As you have failed to close the loan account we have adjusted your amount is the savings account towards the loan. An amount of Rs. 1,621-14-7 is in your name in the savings account, at the same time Rs. 1,654-2-0 is due from you in the loan account. After adjustment Rs. 32-3-5 is due from you to the bank". Whatever may have been the book entries made by the defendant there is a clear admission that an amount of Rs. 1,621-14-7 is due to the plaintiff under the savings bank account on 24 61956. There is a refusal to pay the same as a sum of Rs. 1,654-2-0 is due from the plaintiff in the loan account. The use of the present tense in the passage quoted above is insignificant. The defence case is not that there was a sum due to the plaintiff and that the same had been discharged by adjustment but that such a sum is due. 8. The words used in Ex. P-2 are similar to those which arose for consideration in Sivakasi M. E. Co. v. Ramalal M. Bros. (AIR. 1963 Mad. The defence case is not that there was a sum due to the plaintiff and that the same had been discharged by adjustment but that such a sum is due. 8. The words used in Ex. P-2 are similar to those which arose for consideration in Sivakasi M. E. Co. v. Ramalal M. Bros. (AIR. 1963 Mad. 403): "On the whole, you are liable to pay in the shape of damages for breach of contract made by you in not taking delivery of the goods despatched to you as described in invoice No. 4/10 dated 23-4-1951, a sum of Rs. 880-9-2. My clients have appropriated from out of the advance payment of the sum of Rs. 1,001 a sum of Rs. 880-9-2 towards the said damage sustained by my clients. There is thus a small balance of Rs. 120-6-10 standing to your credit. My clients are ready to remit the sum to you at your cost on receipt of your consent to have it done so." These were construed in the following manner: "I am undoubtedly liable to refund the advance amount. I have, however, a certain claim against you which is independent of my obligation. I would like to adjust one against the other; indeed I have done so and I am willing to pay the balance". It was held that this was an acknowledgment of liability. We are of opinion that Ex. P-2 has to be construed on similar lines, and that it does not amount to a repudiation of liability. We therefore hold that Ex. P-2 is a valid acknowledgment of the plaint claim and that the suit instituted within three years of the date of Ex. P-2 is within time. We accordingly set aside the concurrent finding on the question of limitation and hold that the suit is not barred by limitation. 9. In the result, we allow the second appeal, set aside the concurrent decrees and decree the plaint claim with costs throughout. Plaintiff is allowed to recover Rs. 1,909.65 with interest on Rs. 1,621.91 at 5 per cent per annum from date of suit till realisation. Allowed.