Acknowledgment & Effect of Part-payment (ss.18–19) — CPC & Limitation Act Notes

Acknowledgment & Effect of Part-payment (ss.18–19)

In Sampuran Singh v Niranjan Kaur (1999), parties tried to rely on an acknowledgment of a mortgage debt to keep the claim alive — but the acknowledgment had been made after the limitation period was already over. The Supreme Court’s answer was blunt and is the flagship rule of this topic: an acknowledgment made after the period has expired cannot revive a debt that is already dead. Timing is everything.

What is acknowledgment, and how does it reset the clock?

Sections 18 and 19 are the law’s “restart button.” Limitation normally counts down once and expires. But if, while the debt is still alive, the debtor admits the liability in writing, or makes a part-payment, the law treats this as a fresh recognition of the obligation and gives the creditor a brand-new period counted from that admission. The everyday sense: if the debtor himself says “yes, I still owe you,” it is only fair to give the creditor fresh time to sue on that living debt.

Section 18 — acknowledgment of liability. The essentials (learn each — this is the 16-mark core):

An admission of liability — there must be an acknowledgment of an existing liability in respect of the property or right. It need not admit the exact amount or promise to pay; it is enough that it admits a subsisting jural relationship (a live debtor–creditor relationship) — Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v Durga Prosad Chamaria (1961).
In writing. An oral acknowledgment is not enough (contrast the old law).
Signed by the party against whom the right is claimed, or by his duly authorised agent. An unsigned writing will not do (though an undated one can be proved by oral evidence of when it was signed).
Made BEFORE the period expires. This is the decisive condition: the acknowledgment must be made before the expiration of the prescribed period. An admission made after the debt is already time-barred does nothing — you cannot restart a clock that has already run out.

If all four are satisfied, a fresh period of limitation of the same length runs from the date the acknowledgment was signed.

Section 19 — effect of part-payment. A payment on account of a debt, or of interest on a legacy, made before the expiry of the period by the person liable (or his authorised agent), also starts a fresh period from the date of payment — provided an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making it. So a bare cash payment with no writing does not count under s.19; there must be a written/handwritten record of the payment by the payer.

Compare s.18 and s.19 quickly:

s.18 — a written, signed admission of liability; restarts the clock from the date signed.
s.19 — an actual part-payment of debt/interest, evidenced in the payer’s own handwriting or a signed writing; restarts from the date of payment.
Both demand the same non-negotiable timing: the act must occur before the original period expires.

⚠️ The trap the examiner sets again and again: a debtor writes a warm, apologetic letter admitting the debt after the limitation period is already over. Students rush to say “acknowledgment — debt revived.” It is wrong. Section 18 requires the acknowledgment before expiry. Once dead, a debt is not revived by a later admission (Sampuran Singh v Niranjan Kaur, 1999). (A written promise to pay a time-barred debt may bind under s.25(3) of the Contract Act — but that is a fresh contract, not s.18.)

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Acknowledgment after expiry, and the loan-dates variant

Facts. A lends B ₹1,00,000 on 1 April 2019. The limitation for a simple money suit is 3 years, so it expires on 1 April 2022. On 10 June 2022 — after expiry — B writes and signs a letter: “I am sorry, I still owe you the ₹1,00,000; I will pay soon.” A sues relying on that letter.

Rule. Section 18: an acknowledgment restarts limitation only if it is in writing, signed, and made BEFORE the prescribed period expires. An acknowledgment after expiry does not revive a time-barred debt.

Apply. The letter is written and signed — but it was made on 10 June 2022, after the period had already run out on 1 April 2022. The debt was already dead when B wrote it, so s.18 cannot restart the clock.

Conclusion. The suit is time-barred; the post-expiry acknowledgment does not revive it.

Variant (acknowledgment before expiry). If B had signed the very same letter on 1 March 2022 — before the 1 April 2022 expiry — a fresh 3-year period would run from 1 March 2022, and a suit filed up to 1 March 2025 would be perfectly in time. Same words, opposite result — the only difference is the date.

Decoy. “An acknowledgment always revives the debt” is the planted error. It revives nothing unless made before expiry.

Section 18(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 … a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.”

In Simple Terms: If, while the debt is still alive, the debtor puts his signature to a writing admitting he owes you, the clock resets and you get a fresh full period from the date he signed. Miss the “before expiry” window and it does nothing.

Section 19: “Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that … an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.”

In Simple Terms: A part-payment made before expiry also restarts the clock from the date of payment — but only if the payer’s own handwriting or signature records that payment. A silent cash payment with no writing will not do.

💡 EXAM TIP — Timing is the whole game in s.18

The trap. Faced with the “apology letter after expiry” problem, most candidates see the written admission, shout “acknowledgment!”, and revive the debt — losing the entire problem.

What to write. Lead with the timing rule: “s.18 restarts limitation only if the acknowledgment is in writing, signed, and made before the period expires”; then apply the dates and conclude the debt is dead, citing Sampuran Singh v Niranjan Kaur (1999). Add the s.25(3) Contract Act point as a distinguishing flourish.

Why it scores. The examiner plants the post-expiry date deliberately; spotting it proves you read for when, not just what.

flowchart TD
    ACK["Debtor admits liability<br/>in writing, signed<br/>(or makes part-payment)"]:::root
    ACK --> T{"Made BEFORE the<br/>period expired?"}:::dec
    T -->|"Yes"| FRESH["Fresh period runs from<br/>date signed / paid (ss.18-19)"]:::leaf
    T -->|"No (after expiry)"| DEAD["Debt already dead —<br/>NOT revived"]:::warn
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef dec fill:#FFE8C2,stroke:#B45309,color:#000;
    classDef warn fill:#FDE2E2,stroke:#B91C1C,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Sampuran Singh v Niranjan Kaur (1999) — an acknowledgment made after the period has already expired cannot revive a time-barred debt.
Shapoor Fredoom Mazda v Durga Prosad Chamaria (1961) — an acknowledgment under s.18 need not admit the exact liability; it is enough that it indicates a subsisting jural relationship.
Tilak Ram v Nathu (1967) — an acknowledgment must show a conscious admission of a present, subsisting liability, not a mere reference to a past transaction.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All CPC & Limitation Act topics