JUDGMENT Rajeshwari Prasad, J. - This is an appeal filed by Messrs Rampur Engineering Company Ltd. defendant from the decision of Sri Prayag Narain, District Judge, Rampur, dated 30th April 1965 in Original Suit No. 2 of 1965 filed by the plaintiff-respondent in that court. 2. Major General His Highness Nawab Sir Syed Raza Khan Bahadur, Nawab of Rampur filed this suit for recovery of money on the allegation that the defendant is a company registered under the Rampur State Companies Act, 1932; the plaintiff was a director of the defendant company for a number of years and was interested in its wellbeing. In the year 1960, the defendant company was short of funds and the plaintiff on being approached by it, agreed to finance the company to meet its urgent needs. On 24th Oct. 1950, the plaintiff advanced the sum of Rs. 67,000/- to the defendant company on the promise of payment of interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum. In the year 1954, the management of the company changed and a new Board of Directors came into existence. The plaintiff's dues however remained unpaid. The plaintiff was willing to forego interest in case the payment was made as promised but as no payment had been made, the assurance of giving up interest also was not binding. Suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 78,453/- principal and interest on account of the above loan. It was further alleged that the loan had been acknowledged and admitted by the defendants from year to year in its annual balance sheets and that therefore the suit was within time. 3. Various pleas including the plea of bar of limitation, were raised by the defendant in the written statement filed by it. 4. The court below came to the conclusion that the suit was within time by virtue if the acknowledgements made in the yearly balance sheets prepared by the defendant company. It decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of the sum of Rs. 42,000/-principal and also interest at 5 per cent per annum simple on Rs. 67,000/-from 1st July 1954 to 12th May 1963; on Rs. 52,000/- from 13th May 1963 to 3rd June 1963; and on Rs. 42,000/-from 4th June 1963 to date of suit with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest on the amount decreed, at 5 per cent per annum simple. 5. 67,000/-from 1st July 1954 to 12th May 1963; on Rs. 52,000/- from 13th May 1963 to 3rd June 1963; and on Rs. 42,000/-from 4th June 1963 to date of suit with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest on the amount decreed, at 5 per cent per annum simple. 5. Aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant as noted above, has filed the present first appeal. 6. Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing for the defendant-appellant pressed two points before us. The first point pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant was that a balance sheet cannot constitute an acknowledgement within the meaning of Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, and this being so, the claim of the plaintiff was barred by time. 7. The second contention made by his was that the plaintiff never came out with a case that the rate of interest recoverable by him was 5 percent. His case was that it was only at the rate of 4 per cent per annum and consequently the lower court was not justified in awarding interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum as it has done. He further urged that in case the claim of the plaintiff is found to be within time then it was a fit case in which a decree for payment by instalment may be passed. 8. In support of his contention on the first point, namely, that a balance sheet cannot constitute an acknowledgement within the meaning of Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the plaintiff himself was a director of the defendant company and a party to the preparation of the balance sheet. The plaintiff, therefore, stood in a fiduciary relationship with the company and consequently, a document to which he was a party would not constitute a valid acknowledgement. The learned counsel relied upon some English decisions for the proposition put forth by him. In the next place, he urged that the recitals made in the balance sheets do not amount to acknowledgement of subsisting liability inasmuch as the balance sheet disclosed the financial state of affairs as on the last date of the financial year i.e. 31st March of each year. In the next place, he urged that the recitals made in the balance sheets do not amount to acknowledgement of subsisting liability inasmuch as the balance sheet disclosed the financial state of affairs as on the last date of the financial year i.e. 31st March of each year. The balance sheets having been prepared much after 31st March every year it could not contain an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability on the date when the balance sheet was drawn up and prepared. So far, as the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it stands completely answered by the fact that the plaintiff was a signatory of the balance sheet prepared for the financial year 1950-51 and for the financial year 1952-53 only. Balance sheets for the years 1951-52 and for all years subsequent to 1952-53 have not been signed by the plaintiff but by other directors of the company. Signatures of two directors of the company are necessary to validate the balance sheet under Section 133 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913. This being so, and the balance sheet for the year 1952-53 having been signed by four directors, there was a valid balance sheet even if the plaintiff had not signed the same. We are therefore unable to agree with the defendant-appellant that in this case, the balance sheet would not constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act on the ground of there being a fiduciary relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant company. 9. In support of his other ground, namely, that a balance sheet by its very nature is not an acknowledgment of subsisting liability on the date when the balance sheet is prepared. What has been urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the balance sheet may constitute an admission of the fact that on the 31st March of that, year, there was a subsisting liability of the defendant company in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, but that such an admission did not constitute acknowledgment of subsisting liability on the date of the acknowledgment. 10. Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act lays down three conditions. The first condition laid down by the section is that the acknowledgment should have been made before the expiry of the period of limitation for suit or appeal in respect of the claim. 10. Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act lays down three conditions. The first condition laid down by the section is that the acknowledgment should have been made before the expiry of the period of limitation for suit or appeal in respect of the claim. The second condition is that it has to be an acknowledgment of liability, and the third and the last condition is that it has to be in writing and signed by the person liable or on his behalf. The question, therefore, is whether a balance sheet of a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and drawn up annually in a prescribed manner complies with the three requirements of Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. In the first column of the balance sheet prepared by the defendant company, list of liabilities of the company have been given. The claim of the plaintiff in suit has also been mentioned in that list. Consequently, it cannot be said that the entry in the balance sheet does not constitute admission of liability. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on a decision reported in Bengal Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, AIR 1962 Calcutta 115. In that case the question under consideration by their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court was, whether a balance sheet of a limited company could constitute acknowledgment within the meaning of Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. The argument advanced before their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court was also similar to the argument advanced before us. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court, took the view that the fact that in the balance sheet of the foregoing year, there is an acknowledgment of liability in itself implies the continuance of that liability after that year, because such a liability shown in the balance sheet for the outgoing year must necessarily be brought forward in the current year. The view taken by their Lordships was, that though a balance sheet may not expressly disclose that the liability was subsisting on the date when the balance sheet was drawn up yet there was such an acknowledgment by implication and consequently the view taken by that court was that a balance sheet would constitute an acknowledgment of liabilities within the meaning of Sec. 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. Their Lordships of the Calcutta High Court referred to the Privy Council decision in Maniram Seth v. Seth Rup Chand, ILR 33 Cal. 1047. The question before the Privy Council in that case was, whether an acknowledgment to the effect that accounts have to be settled constituted an acknowledgment of liability for such amount as may be found due as a result of the accounting. The Privy Council took the view that it did constitute an acknowledgment of liability indirectly. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in A. C. K. Krishnaswami v. Stressed concrete Construction Pvt. Ltd., A.I.R. 1964 Mad. 191 and on the decision in P. S. T. Iyenger v. Official Liquidator, Srinewas Mills Ltd., A.I.R. 1962 Mad. 253, as also on the decision in Kashinath Shankarappa v. The New Akot Cotton Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1951 Nag. 255. The learned counsel further referred to us as a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jwala Prasad v. Jwala Bank Ltd., AIR 1957 Allahabad 143. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent as noted above has placed reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bengal Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, AIR 1962 Calcutta 115, and on the decision in Corn Cas 216 Lahore Enamelling and Stamping Co. Ltd. v. A. K. Bahalla, A.I.R. 1958 Pun. 341. So far as the two cases of the Madras High Court relied upon by the defendant-appellant are concerned, they relate to the question of existence of fiduciary relationship. We have already expressed our view based on the facts of the present case so far as that point is concerned. The view taken by the Nagpur High Court in Kashinath Shankarappa v. The New Akot Cotton Ginning & Pressing Co. Ltd., A.I.R. 1951 Nag. 255,. was that a balance sheet having been prepared according to the dictates of statutory provision, they could not be deemed to be acknowledgment by the agent with the concurrence and at the instance of the principal. The facts of the case of Jwala Prasad v. Jwala Bank Ltd., AIR 1957 Allahabad 143, were different from the facts of the present case and are clearly distinguishable. The facts of the case of Jwala Prasad v. Jwala Bank Ltd., AIR 1957 Allahabad 143, were different from the facts of the present case and are clearly distinguishable. Moreover, a short opinion, expressed in that decision to the effect that a balance sheet cannot constitute an acknowledgment for the purposes of Indian Limitation Act is only by way of an obiter. The only case where precise arguments which have been pressed before us were raised, is the one of Bengal Silk Mills Co. v. Ismail Golam Hossain Ariff, AIR 1962 Calcutta 115. We are therefore inclined to accept the view expressed in that case and on that basis have come to the conclusion that the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a balance sheet is not an acknowledgment of a subsisting liability is not sound. We, there-fore, find no difficulty in confirming the view, taken by the lower court, that the claim of the plaintiff is not barred by time. 11. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the question of rate of interest is concerned, we agree with him. We find that the court below has erroneously allowed interest from 1st July 1954 to 1st August 1959 at the rate of five per cent. The plaintiff would be entitled to interest during that period only at the rate of four per cent per annum, and not at the rate of five per cent per annum, and to that extent, the decree of the court below will stand modified. 12. We have considered the request of the learned counsel for the appellant to make the decretal amount payable by instalments within a period of two years in the light of the circumstances of the present case. 13. On behalf of the plaintiff-respondent, it has been urged that a clause entitling the plaintiff-respondent to recover the entire decretal amount therefore, of the view that it is a fit case in which the defendant be allowed to pay up the entire decretal amount along with interest and costs of the suit in both the courts within a period of two years from the date of the decree of this Court. We also accept the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that in case of default in the payment of any two consecutive instalments, the entire amount then due, under the decree would be recoverable at once in execution of the decree. 14. Mr. Gopi Nath Kunzru appearing for the plaintiff has informed us that an attachment before judgment was made in this case. He has requested us to direct that the attachment be continued so as to facilitate the recovery of decretal amount in case there is default in its payment. The request is reasonable. 15. The appeal is partly allowed. The decree passed by the court below is confirmed subject to the following modifications :- (1) The rate of interest recoverable by the plaintiff-respondent as from 1st July 1954 to 1st August 1959 will be calculated at the rate of four per cent per annum and not at the rate of five per cent per annum. (2) The attachment made before judgment under Or. 28, C.P.C. will continue for a period of two years in view of the instalment decree. (3) The decretal amount principal, interest and costs will be payable by the defendant-appellant within a period of two years from the date of the decree of this Court by equal monthly instalment. (4) The plaintiff-respondent will get costs of this Court also from the defendant-appellant. Appeal Partly allowed.