NARASIMHA RAMA AIYAR Vs. IBRAHIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises for determination in this petition is whether the suit is barred by limitation against the respondents. The suit is brought on a promissory note executed by one Chinna Babu Rowther on 29 October, 1920, in favour of the appellant (plaintiff). Chinna Babu Rowther died and his estate devolved on his widow, two minor sons and a minor daughter as his heirs. On the 22nd October, 1923, the widow Muhammad Beevi Ammal (1st defendant) purporting to act on behalf of herself and her minor children made a payment of Rs. 5 towards interest due on the promissory note. Plaintiff sues all the co-heirs, viz., the widow, sons and daughter of Chinna Babu Rowther for the balance due to him on the pro- note.

(2.) The respondents who were impleaded as defendants 2 to 4 pleaded that the alleged payment of interest is not true, and that even if true, the payment by their mother, the; 1st defendant would not save the suit from the bar of limitation as against them. The trial Judge finds that the payment for interest is true but he holds that as the payer, namely, the mother of the other defendants was not their lawful guardian under the Mahomedan Law the payment made by her will not save limitation as against them. He therefore gave a decree for plaintiff only as against the 1 defendant (mother) and dismissed the suit against other defendants. The plaintiff has preferred this petition and the question which arises is whether the payment by the mother saves the suit from the bar of limitation as against her co-heirs also. Apart from the question of limitation there can be no doubt that all the defendants who as co-heirs inherited the property of Chinna Babu Rowther are liable for the debt though such a liability can be enforced as against them only to the extent of the assets of the deceased in their hands.

(3.) The petitioner's learned Advocate does not question the correctness of the view taken by the trial Judge that the mother (the 1 defendant) in making the payment cannot be regarded as having made the payment as their guardian or agent but his contention is that under Section 20 of the Limitation Act when interest on a debt is paid by any one of the persons who are liable to pay the debt such payment is effectual to save limitation as against all persons liable to pay the debt. The material portion of Section 20 on which reliance is placed is as follows: Where interest on a debt is before the expiration of the prescribed period paid as such by the person liable to pay the debt a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made.