Spencer, J.

The statement which the Courts below have taken to be an acknowledgment of liability sufficient to save limitation, is the statement made by the present 2nd defendant who was 3rd defendant in O. S. No. 28 of 1911 when examined as 2nd witness for plaintiff when he said I am the 3rd defendant. I and the 2nd defendant purchased some land from the 1st defendant. For the balance of price due to her, Ex. A was executed .

We are unable to accept the view that this was an acknowledgment of a liability subsisting at the date when the witness deposed.

The witness did not speak of the price as being still due to the 1st defendant at the time.

We hold following Kandasami Reddi v. Suppammal (I.L.R., 45 Mad., 443 [LQ/MadHC/1921/247] ; s.c., 15 L.W., 325), Ittappan Kuthiravattat Nayer v. Nanu Sastri (I.L.R., 26 Mad., 34), and Venkata v. Parthasaradhi (I.L.R., 16 Mad., 220), that no implied acknowledgment of liability can be spelt out of the mere statement that the witness on some prior date executed a mortgage bond.

The witness was 3rd defendant in O, S. No. 28 of 1911 but did not defend that suit. At the time of giving evidence he had no necessity to mention anything about his liability.

For the respondent reliance has been placed on Subbarama Aiyar v. Veerabadra Pillai (14 L.W., 148). In that case there were certain endorsements on the promissory note in question and the defendant stated as a witness in a criminal case when the promissory note was shown to him that he executed it and that the contents of it were correct.

We are inclined to doubt whether that case was correctly decided but it is unnecessary to say more as the words in which the supposed admissions were made are different from the words used in this case.

We allow the second appeal and set aside the direction that plaintiff may have a personal remedy against appellant with costs in the lower appellate Court and here.