AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
It is found that Rs. 700 was paid towards the amounts due to the plaintiff; and all the amounts due to the plaintiff are under the three promissory-notes in question. There is no other debt due to the plaintiff from the defendant. There is an entry in the handwriting of the person who made the payment on behalf of the defendant showing the payment. That being so, Section 20 of the Limitation Act clearly applies. The payment was towards the discharge of the debt due under the three promissory-notes. It must be either that the interest was intended to be discharged, or the principal, or principal and interest both. If the payment was towards interest, no writing is necessary, and mere payment will be sufficient to save limitation, or rather to start a fresh period of limitation. If it was towards principal, then in that case there is the entry in the hand-writing of the man who made it and that satisfies the requirements of Section 20. If the payment was towards principal and interest, then in that case also this writing "will be sufficient to save limitation, assuming that a writing was necessary to produce that effect.
The decree of the District Judge is, therefore, set aside and the appeal is remanded to him for disposal on the merits. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.