JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree recorded by Sri Ram Sanehi, I Temporary Civil & Sessions Judge, Ghazipur in Civil Appeal No. 99 of 1969 by which he reversed the judgment and decree recorded by learned Munsif in Original suit No. 163 of 1968 by which plaintiffs claim was decreed. 2. The suit was filed by plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1018.50 with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum. Ram Surat Singh filed the suit with the allegations that on 22.7.63 he advanced a sum of Rs. 700/- to defendant on the basis of a pronote executed by defendant on the same day in his favour. In the same transaction defendant agreed to give his plot measuring 25 biswas in lieu of interest for one year only. But later on he sold that holding to third party Birendra Singh and others who dispossessed the plaintiff. 3. The suit was filed after expiry of the period of limitation of three years on 4.10.68. Limitation was sought to be extended through an admission in suit no. 165 of 1964 inter parties relating to another loan for a sum of Rs. 2500/-. In his written statement and in his own statement plaintiff acknowledged his liability towards this transaction. 4. Defendant traversed all these allegations. He denied to have made any acknowledgment. Learned Munsif accepted the claim of plaintiff which was decreed but that judgment and decree were reversed in appeal. 5. The simple point which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether the statements of respondent relied upon by appellant amounted to acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of Limitation Act No. 36 of 1963. Section 18 of the aforesaid Act reads as below :- "affect of acknowledgment in writing :-(1) where, before the expiration of the prescribed period 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 any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from one time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed, but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 oral Evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation :- For the purposes of this section - (a) an acknowledgement may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right". 6. As the original written statement and depositions of Jagannath Dubey could not be available as that record had been weeded out so a certified copy of the written statement and deposition was filed in this appeal. Annexure-A to the affidavit of Sheo Charan Singh is the copy of the statement filed in original suit no. 165 of 1964 of the Court of Munsif, Ghazipur relating to the recovery of the loan of Rs. 2500/-. Respondent admitted his liability about the earlier loan but tried to dispute his liability for interest under that loan. In para no. 7 of the additional pleas it was pleaded that in order to wipe out the liability towards interest in the earlier loan the respondent executed another document for a sum of Rs. 700/- which was liable to be set off. A similar statement was made by him in his evidence vide Annexure-B of the aforesaid affidavit. Learned appellate Court found that the plea of set off was not accepted in the earlier suit and the recital in these documents did not amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 aforesaid. Respondent did not admit any subsisting liability of Rs. 700/- under this Sarkhat; he did not admit to have received any amount in cash in execution of this Sarkhat. He simply admitted the execution of the pronote in lieu of the interest only and at the same time pleaded for the discharge of that liability on that score. 7. Respondent did not admit any subsisting liability of Rs. 700/- under this Sarkhat; he did not admit to have received any amount in cash in execution of this Sarkhat. He simply admitted the execution of the pronote in lieu of the interest only and at the same time pleaded for the discharge of that liability on that score. 7. Obviously, a carefully perusal of the aforesaid admission shall go to disclose that there was no direct acknowledgment of liability on the part of the defendant relating to any property or right. Mere admission about the execution of the document could not saddle him with the liability. 8. In Tilor Ram and others v. Nathu and others reported in AIR 1967 SC page 935, it was observed at page-938 :- "The section requires (i) an admission or acknowledgment (ii) that such acknowledgment must be in respect of a liability in respect of a property or right, in that it must be made before the expiry of the period of limitation, and (iv) that it should be in writing and signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. Under the Explanation such an acknowledgment need not specify the exact nature of the property or the right claimed, it is manifest that the statement relied on roust amount to an admission or acknowledgment and that acknowledgment must be in respect of the property or right claimed by the party relying on such a statement. 9. In the instant case I find that there was no intention on the part of respondent to make any acknowledgment about his liability under this Sharkhat which he never considered to have been executed to evidence any advance of money to him. He simply tried to explain away this Sarkhat also by alleging that it was executed by him in connection with his liability for interest only towards the earlier transaction. 10. Under the circumstances, I find that the aforesaid documents do not constitute an acknowledgment of the respondent within the meaning of Section 18 aforesaid. 11. In this view of the matter I do not find any substance in this appeal which is dismissed with costs.