HONNIAH, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant Sadiq Suheel against the respondents, the Union of India represented by the Secretary, ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi, the Regional Settlement Commissioner and Custodian of Evacuee Property in Mysore State, the State of Mysore and the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur district, wherein he sought to recover a sum of Rs. 27,469-69 being the amount due to him for having managed the estate called 'belagode estate' which was declared as an evacuee property in the year 1949. The plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 13,597-42 as interest thereon from 1-1-1953 to 28-3-1961 at 6 per cent per annum. The claim of the plaintiff upto 28-3-1961 is for Rs. 41,067-11 less Rs. 12,261-11, received by him on 14-4-1961 from defendant 2 by a cheque dated 28-3-1961. On the balance interest is claimed at 6 per cent per annum from 29-3-1961 to date of suit and notice charges. In all the suit is for a total sum of Rs. 33,670. Plaintiff is an Advocate of this Court Mrs Vasia Begum is his wife. She purchased a coffee estate known as "belagode Estate' situate in Chickmagalur district from one Samada Shabeen brother of the plaintiff. The state of Mysore promulgated an Ordinance by which it was required that sales effected by persons who had left India for Pakistan prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance should be confirmed by the Custodian of the evacuee Property who, in the then State of Mysore, was the Revenue commissioner. The Deputy Commissioners of each District were appointed deputy Custodians The plaintiff's wife accordingly applied to the said custodian for confirmation of the sale. The Custodian referred that application of the plaintiff to defendant 4 for enquiry. In the proceedings before the fourth defendant in No. E. P. 29/49-50 the Deputy Custodian did not confirm the sale, but declared it as an Evacuee property. The wife of the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Custodian, but was unsuccessful. Her revision to the Custodian-General of India in E. P. Revision No. 465/r-52 also failed. ( 2 ) TAKING into consideration the nature of the property which was a coffee estate, the Deputy Custodian appointed the plaintiff to manage the property as in his opinion the plaintiff was a competent person having experience in the management of coffee estates. Her revision to the Custodian-General of India in E. P. Revision No. 465/r-52 also failed. ( 2 ) TAKING into consideration the nature of the property which was a coffee estate, the Deputy Custodian appointed the plaintiff to manage the property as in his opinion the plaintiff was a competent person having experience in the management of coffee estates. This was on 29-10-1949. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff was appointed to manage the estate. But there is no material on record placed by either party to show the terms under which he was so appointed. Therefore, we have to take it that the plaintiff was appointed to manage the estate in its best interests. It follows therefore, that if the plaintiff incurred any expenditure in his capacity as Manager of the estate and for its benefit, the Custodian is liable to reimburse him the amounts so spent the maintenance of coffee estates, as is generally known, involves expenditure such as appointing managers, maistries, labourers etc. , incurring expenditure to maintain trees, on manure and such other expenses necessary to maintain an estate. The plaintiff used to send the coffee produce to the Coffee Board to the account of the Deputy Custodian and whatever moneys were payable by the Board were being credited to the account of the Deputy Custodian. The plaintiff had no authority whatsoever to withdraw any moneys. The evidence in this case shows that the plaintiff got some income from subsidiary crops like cardamom, oranges, soap-nut etc. , and it is not disputed that he credited the amounts realised by their sale also to the account of the Deputy Custodian. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff was submitting accounts to the Deputy Custodian periodically supported by vouchers. There is also evidence which is not controverted that the Deputy Custodian used to inspect the estate and the accounts maintained by the plaintiff from time to time. From the nature of the management of the estate it is clear that the plaintiff as an Agent of the deputy Custodian had to spend large sums of moneys for the upkeep of the estate. From the nature of the management of the estate it is clear that the plaintiff as an Agent of the deputy Custodian had to spend large sums of moneys for the upkeep of the estate. ( 3 ) IT is not also disputed that the plaintiff managed the estate for three years from 1949 to 1952 for and on behalf of the Deputy Custodian, For the subsequent two years the estate had been leased out to the plaintiff with which period, we are not concerned in this case. Even prior to the handing over possession of the estate to the Deputy Custodian on 26-4-1954, the plaintiff was requesting the Deputy Custodian to settle his claim in respect of the cost of management for the three years and by his petition dated 25-8-1952 which is marked as Ext. P-1 in the case, he claimed a sum of Rs. 29,643-5-3 and requested for the interim payment of Rs. 13,000. The plaintiff received a reply (Ext. P2) dated 7/10-9-1952 from the Custodian to the effect that the request of the plaintiff could not be considered till the completion of the audit. Thereafter, the accounts of the plaintiff were got audited by the Custodian and Ext. P-3 dated 13-12-1952 is the letter of the Auditor forwarding along with it Ext. P-S (d), his report. As per the report of the Auditor, a sum of Rs. 27,469-11-0 was found to be due towards expenditure incurred by the plaintiff for the upkeep of the estate and its management for the three years referred to above. After the accounts were audited and the report was submitted to the Custodian, the plaintiff addressed a letter (Ext. P-4) dated 28-6-1955 to the Custodian requesting him to pay him a sum of Rs. 27,469-11-0 as certified by the Auditor. It appears that the office of the Custodian tried to expedite the matter, but for reasons not known the claim of the plaintiff was not settled. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice (Ex. P-6) dated 16-12-1955 calling Upon the authorities to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 27,469-11-0 forthwith failing which, he would take necessary steps to recover the said amount in a competent court of law. To that the plaintiff received an endorsement (Ext. P-7) dated 17-2-1956 from the office of the Custodian which reads as follows: endorsement his claim for payment of Rs. 27,469-11-0 forthwith failing which, he would take necessary steps to recover the said amount in a competent court of law. To that the plaintiff received an endorsement (Ext. P-7) dated 17-2-1956 from the office of the Custodian which reads as follows: endorsement his claim for payment of Rs. 27,469-11-0 due from Evacuee, Belagodu estate, Chickmagalur District. Shri Shidiq Suheel is requested to confirm if he is agreeble to receive an interim payment of Rs. 6,000 towards his claim as agreed to on 16th February 1956 during the hearing of the claim petition pending further examination of accounts. ( 4 ) HE is further requested to produce the accounts maintained by him in respect of the Estate regarding extra labour entertained, paddy account, land revenue assessment, paid vouchers in respect of materials supplied, amounts directly received by him from Coffee Board in respect of coffee seeds for the years in question etc. as directed in the course of the hearing of the case on 16th February 1956. In spite of this letter the Custodian did not pay to the plaintiff even the sum of Rs. 6,000 although the plaintiff approached him a number of times in the meanwhile, one Verma took over as the Regional Settlement commissioner and Custodian of Evacuee properties in Mysore. The plaintiff wrote to him a letter (Ext. P-9) dated 12-11-1957, bringing to his notice the previous correspondence and requesting him to settle his claim early. It appears that the plaintiff and Varma met on 4-12-1957 and after discussion the plaintiff agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 20,000 nett in full settlement of his claim. Presumably in pursuance of that talk the plaintiff wrote the letter (Ext. P-10) which is very material in this case. It reads as follows: sub:-Rs. 27,459-79 plus interest due from Custodian of E. P. Mysore in respect of Belgoda Estate. In pursuance of your offer so kindly made in our personal talk today to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) in full settlement of my claim, I accept the same provided the payment is made to me within 3 months from this date. This is without prejudice to my right to recover the whole amount in respect of the claim if the amount is not paid within the period mentioned above. 20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) in full settlement of my claim, I accept the same provided the payment is made to me within 3 months from this date. This is without prejudice to my right to recover the whole amount in respect of the claim if the amount is not paid within the period mentioned above. On the same day, the Accounts Officer of the Regional Settlement Commissioner's office acknowledged receipt of this letter and made an endorsement to the effect that necessary action would be taken to obtain Government orders expeditiously. This endorsement is marked as Ext. P-10 (a ). As no money was paid to the plaintiff as agreed to between him and Varma in their personal talks and even after the plaintiff's letter (Ext. P-10) the plaintiff wrote letters, Exts. P-11, P-12 and P-13 to Varma stating that as the sum of Rs. 20,000 offered to him in full settlement of his claim was not paid to him within three months, he was free to recover the entire amount of Rs. 27,469-11-0 together with interest thereon at 6 per cent upto the date on which the Auditor submitted his report. To those letters varma wrote Ext. P-14 dated 20-3-1958 stating that action had been taken to remind the Government and soliciting early orders and that as soon as orders were passed, the same would be communicated to the plaintiff. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER, the plaintiff received a letter Ext. P-16 dated 20-5-58 from the office of the Regional Settlement Officer stating that Government had decided, as a special case, to pay a sum of Rs. 12,261-1-9 as compensation in lieu of the expenditure incurred by the plaintiff in full and final settlement of his claim after deducting a sum of Rs. 4,000 on account of the manager's pay, supervision charges, Rs. 3,538-14-3 on account of the capital expenditure out of the sum of Rs. 20,000 which the plaintiff had agreed to accept by virtue of the compromise and further intimating that necessary action was being taken to pay the amount stated in the letter. It is clear from this letter that the Regional Settlement Commissioner has acknowledged the liability to the extent of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff for having managed the Estate. But he restricted and reduced the claim to Rs. It is clear from this letter that the Regional Settlement Commissioner has acknowledged the liability to the extent of Rs. 20,000 to the plaintiff for having managed the Estate. But he restricted and reduced the claim to Rs. 12,261-1-9 unilaterally presumbly thinking that the plaintiff had no authority to pay the Manager and incur other expenditure for supervision etc. This unilateral action by the Commissioner in reducing the claim which the plaintiff had accepted, in our opinion, is not borne out bv the evidence on record. However, the plaintiff received a sum of Rs. 12,261-1-9 bv a cheque dated 28-3-1961 on 14-4-1961, as part payment subject to the claim of the plaintiff for the balance. The suit was filed on 2-1-1964. ( 6 ) REFERENCE may be made to another letter which is marked as Ext p-19 dated 1-4-1961 written bv the Accounts Officer of the office of the regional Settlement Commissioner to the plaintiff informing him that a cheque for Rs. 12,261-11-0 in respect of the expenses incurred for the management of the Estate by the plaintiff had been kept ready and asking the plaintiff to send a stamped receipt at an early date for receipt of the money on receipt of which, cheque would be sent. ( 7 ) THE facts narrated above are not in controversy. The principal issue which arose between the parties to the suit was one of limitation. On behalf of the defendants it was contended that the letters written by the deputy Custodian or by the Custodian or by the Regional Settlement commissioner to the plaintiff would not indicate the acknowledgment of liability to pay the claim of the plaintiff It was contended that the management of the plaintiff came to an end in the year 1952 and even according to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose as soon as his management was over i. e. , in the year 1952 and even assuming that the plaintiff's claim for Rs. 20,000 and odd is true, he not having brought the suit within three years, the suit how filed is barred by time. 20,000 and odd is true, he not having brought the suit within three years, the suit how filed is barred by time. It was also contended that after the claim of the plaintiff became barred by time, if any one of the authorities had written to the plaintiff stating that they would pay the amount and in fact, paid certain amount, that would not save the claim of the plaintiff from the bar of limitation. It was further urged that the recitals in Exts. P-16 and P-19 would not amount to acknowledgment of the liability within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act. ( 8 ) THE learned Civil Judge held that the letters and the other acts done by the Custodian of Evacuee property would not save the time either under S. 19 or under S. 20 of the Limitation Act and in that view of the matter, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Section 19 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1908, provides:"where before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by some person through whom he derives title or liability a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. "sub-sec. (2) of S. 19 is not relevant for the purpose of this case. From a reading of sub-sec. (1) of S. 19, the acknowledgment as prescribed by that section merely renews the debt. It does not create a new right of action. The statement or statements on which the plea of acknowledgment is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the effect, nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. The words used in the acknowledgment must however, give an indication that there existed a jural relationship between the parties such as the debtor and the creditor. The admission of liability need not be express. But there must be material available from the acknowledgment from which it could be gathered that there was an acknowledgment of a subsisting debt. The words used in the acknowledgment must however, give an indication that there existed a jural relationship between the parties such as the debtor and the creditor. The admission of liability need not be express. But there must be material available from the acknowledgment from which it could be gathered that there was an acknowledgment of a subsisting debt. In dealing with this question, the Supreme Court in S. F. Mazda v. Durga prasad, AIR 1961 SC 1236 , has observed as follows: "it is thus clear that acknowledgment as prescribed by S. 19 merely renews debt; it does not create a new right of action. It is a mere acknowledgment of the liability in respect of the right in question; it need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. The statement on which a plea of acknowledgment is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. Words used in the acknowledgment must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission, and need not be expressed in words. If the statement is fairly clear then the intention to admit jural relationship may be implied from it. The admission in question need not be express but must be made in circumstances and in words from which the Court can reasonably infer that the person making the admission intended to refer to a subsisting liability as at the date of the statement. In construing words used in the statements made in writing on which a plea of acknowledgment rests oral evidence has been expressly excluded but surrounding circumstances can always be considered. Stated generally courts lean in favour of a liberal construction of such statements though it does not mean that where no admission is made one should be inferred, or where a statement was made clearly without intending to admit the existence of jural relationship such intention could be fastened on the maker of the statement by an involved or far fatched process of reasoning. Broadly stated that is the effect of the relevant provisions contained in S. 19. . . . . . " ext. P-7 which has been referred to already is dated 16-12-1955. The correspondence between the parties as indicated above shows that the custodian of the Evacuee properties intimated the plaintiff by his letter dated 7] 10-9-1952 (Ex. P-2) stating that the claim made by the petitioner would only arise after the completion of the audit. Then, by Ext. P-7 dated 17-2-1956, the Custodian offered to pay a sum of Rs. 6,000 by way of an interim payment but requested him to produce the accounts with neceseary vouchers to determine the actual liability of the custodian. This direction was given to the plaintiff in the course of the hearing of his claim petition on 16-2-1956. Ext. P-2 and P-7 clearly and without any ambiguity show that the Custodian of evacuee properties accepted the liability to pay the plaintiff, but the actual amount had not yet been determined by the Custodian and these two letters also establish the jural relationship of debtor and creditor. From Ext. P-7 it is also clear that the hearing took place on 16-2-56 and the amount payable had not been by then determined. Ext. P-10, as already referred, unequivocally shows the acknowledgment of the relationship between the parties as debtor and creditor and the regional Settlement Commissioner and Custodian offered to pay Rs. 20,000 in full settlement of the claim of the plaintiff. This also affirms the case of the plaintiff that the authorities acknowledged the liability of the claim made by the plaintiff even as on 4-12-1957. Then comes the letter Ext. P-16 dated 20-5-1958 by the Regional Settlement Commissioner acknowledging the liability to pay the plaintiff for his having managed the estate. Although that amount as agreed to between the plaintiff and Varma was rs. 20,000 it was reduced to Rs. 12,261-1-9 and in fact, that reduced amount was paid on 14-4-1961. The payment made on 14-4-61 gives a fresh starting point for purposes of limitation under S. 20 of the Limitation Act, it being a part payment of the claim of the plaintiff. 20,000 it was reduced to Rs. 12,261-1-9 and in fact, that reduced amount was paid on 14-4-1961. The payment made on 14-4-61 gives a fresh starting point for purposes of limitation under S. 20 of the Limitation Act, it being a part payment of the claim of the plaintiff. From that date the suit is filed within three years and therefore, from the conduct of the parties concerned, the circumstances, the nature of correspondtnce between the parties and the acts done by the Custodian of the Evacuee properties in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff the only inference that could reasonably be drawn is that the Custodian of the Evacuee Properties accepted the liability to pay at least a sum of Rs. 20,000 although the claim of the plaintiff was for a sum exceeding Rs. 20,000. If the claim of the plaintiff is within time, then the only question that arises for consideration is what is the amount to which the plaintiff is entitled. ( 9 ) UNDER Ext. P-10 dated 4-12-1957, the Regional Settlement Commissioner and Custodian of Evacuee Properties offered to pay a sum of rs. 20,000 and the plaintiff accepted to receive that amount in full and final settlement of all his claims subject to the condition that the said amount should be paid within three months. The evidence shows that the Custodian of Evacuee Properties did not pay the amount within three months. That is the reason why the plaintiff claimed Rs. 27,460-11-0 which was the amount certified by the Auditor as having been spent by the plaintiff towards the maintenance of the Estate. Another reason is that he expressly reserved his right under Ext. P-10 that if the amount of rs. 20,000 was not paid within three months, he was at liberty to recover the whole amount. ( 10 ) AS stated earlier, the Custodian of Evacuee Properties was not justified in deducting a sum of Rs. 4,200 and Rs. 3,538-14-3 on two accounts having agreed to pay earlier to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 20,000. It is not shown how those items of expenditure were unauthorised. They appear to be proper ones. The delay in payment of Rs. 20,000 could be compensated by way of awarding interest from 4-12-1957 on the balance of Rs. 7,738-90 which still remains unpaid out of the agreed amount of Rs. 20,000. 20,000. It is not shown how those items of expenditure were unauthorised. They appear to be proper ones. The delay in payment of Rs. 20,000 could be compensated by way of awarding interest from 4-12-1957 on the balance of Rs. 7,738-90 which still remains unpaid out of the agreed amount of Rs. 20,000. There is no cause of action against defendants 3 and 4 and the suit as against them has to be and is dismissed. --- *** --- .