A owes a sum of Rs. 200/- to B on a pronote. Before the expiry of the period of limitation A pays a sum of Rs. 100/- to B towards that pronote. What is the effect of this payment on limitation?

A part payment of Rs. 100 before expiry of limitation will ordinarily give B a fresh period of limitation from the date of that payment, provided the payment is proved in the manner required by Section 19. The payment does not merely reduce the debt to Rs. 100; it also renews the creditor’s right to sue for the balance, because the statute treats such payment as a fresh point of reckoning.

Governing provision

Section 19 says that where payment on account of a debt is made before the expiry of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or by his duly authorised agent, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. The proviso requires that, except in the historical exception relating to interest payments before 1 January 1928, an acknowledgement of the payment must appear in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.

So, the two essentials are these: the payment must be within limitation, and it must be duly acknowledged in writing in the statutory form. If either requirement is missing, the benefit of Section 19 is lost.

Effect on limitation

Here, A has paid Rs. 100 towards the pronote before limitation expired. If the payment is properly proved and the written acknowledgement requirement is satisfied, the limitation for B’s suit for the debt will run afresh from the date of that payment. In other words, B need not sue within the original remaining period; he gets a new period computed from the date of part payment.

The law does not require the payment to be in cash only. It may be by cheque, by adjustment, or even in kind, if the transaction clearly amounts to payment on account of the debt. But a mere entry in the creditor’s account, without proof of payment by the debtor in the statutory form, will not suffice.

Illustration

Suppose A borrowed Rs. 200 on a pronote, and the suit would otherwise become time-barred on 31 December 2026. If A pays Rs. 100 on 1 October 2026 and the payment is acknowledged in writing by A as required by Section 19, B gets a fresh period from 1 October 2026 to sue for the debt. The debt is not wiped out; only the period for suing is extended.

If, however, A merely says orally that he has paid Rs. 100, or B alone notes the payment in his own books without a proper written acknowledgement by A, Section 19 will not help. The burden is on B to prove the statutory conditions.

Important limits

Section 19 applies only to payment made before the expiry of limitation. A payment after the debt has already become barred will not revive it under Section 19. Also, in the case of joint debtors, payment by one does not automatically save limitation against the others unless the legal requirements for agency or binding authority are present.

It is also important to distinguish Section 19 from Section 18. Section 18 deals with acknowledgement of liability; Section 19 deals with part payment. Under Section 18, the acknowledgement itself must admit a subsisting liability; under Section 19, what matters is the payment, together with the statutorily required written acknowledgement of that payment.

Case law

In Sant Lal Mahton v. Kamla Prasad, the Supreme Court emphasised that for Section 19 the payment must be within limitation and the acknowledgement of payment must be in the prescribed written form. In Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board, the Court reiterated that both the payment and the written acknowledgement are necessary before Section 19 can operate. In Jeevraj v. Lal Chand, the Rajasthan High Court explained that part payment before expiry of limitation renews the period of limitation from the date of payment.

Conclusion

The effect of A’s payment of Rs. 100 is that, if the statutory requirements are satisfied, B gets a fresh period of limitation from the date of payment under Section 19. B should therefore rely on the part payment as a saving act, but only if the payment was made before limitation expired and is supported by the required written acknowledgement.