1. I do not agree with the Munsif that an acknowledgment within Section 19, Limitation Act, must contain a promise to pay or amount to a promise to pay. That view is contrary to Peri Ramasami v. Chandra Kottayya 1925 47 MLJ 840. Nor do I agree with the Munsif that an acknowledgment of the correctness of an account requires a stamp to be valid. It depends on whether the acknowledgment is one within the Stamp Act; and I think the reasons given in Nagappa Chetty v. V.A.A.R. Firm : AIR1925Mad1215 , that an acknowledgment which is merely intended to acknowledge the correctness of an account is not one requiring a stamp, are applicable to the acknowledgment in this case. But I think that the lower Court's decision can be supported on the facts given in the evidence. Plaintiff said that the dealings were with defendants 1 and 2, but in cross-examination he admitted that defendant 1 alone received the money paid in those dealings and that the account stood only in his name. There is also no evidence that the dealings in question related to the joint family of defendants 1 and 2. On this material I think that the dealings were in fact dealings only with defendant 1, and it would follow that defendant 2 could not sign in acknowledgment of defendant 1's liability thereon, unless he was duly authorised to do so. Of that there is no evidence. The civil revision petition must therefore, be dismissed with costs.