1. This is an application for revision under Section 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act. The facts of the case, which have given rise to this application lie within a very narrow compass. On the 26th of November, 1922, Jamil Husain and Musammat Himaiti Jan borrowed Rs. 275 from the applicant, Lala Bhagwati Prasad, and executed a promissory note in his favour. The stipulated rate of interest was Rs. 1 8-0 per cent, per mensem. On the 26th of May 1928, a suit was instituted for recovery of Rs. 5224-0, principal and interest on the promissory note. The suit, as originally framed, was directed against both the executants, viz., Musammat Himaiti Jan and Jamil Husain. It transpired, however, that Musammat Himaiti Jan was dead at the date of the suit. The plaintiff applied that the names of her legal representatives be brought on the record. Muzaffar Husain and Jamil Husain were the heirs of Musammat Himaiti. Jamil Husain was already a defendant in the suit. The name of Muzaffar Husain was brought on the record by an order of the Court, dated the 13th of September, 1928.
2. On the 30th of June, 1925, Jamil Husain paid Rs. 25 towards interest on the promissory note, and the fact of the payment was endorsed by him on the back of the document. He stated therein that he paid Rs. 25 as interest both for himself and for Musammat Himaiti Jan, who was a pardanashin lady. Jamil Husain denied that he had paid Rs. 25 towards interest. Muzaffar Husain contested the suit on the ground that the claim against him was time-barred and that no payments towards interest had been made by Musammat Himaiti. The learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes held on the evidence that Rs. 25 was paid by Jamil Husain towards interest. He, however, held that this payment did not bind Musammat Himaiti and consequently the claim against Muzaffar Husain was time-barred. It is against the order of the learned Small Cause Court Judge dismissing the suit against Muzaffar Husain that the present application for revision has been filed.
3. Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act provides that 'where interest on a debt...is, before the expiration of the prescribed period, paid as such by the person liable to pay the debt...or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf...a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made.' An explanation has been added to the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Limitation Act by the enactment of Section 21. Clause 2 of Section 21 provides that 'nothing in the said sections renders one of several joint contractors, partners, executors or mortgagees chargable by reason only of a written acknowledgment signed or of a payment made by, or by the agent of, any other or others of them.'
4. There does not appear to have been any privity between Musammat Himaiti and Jamil Husain. Musammat Himaiti does not derive title through Jamil Husain. He was not an agent duly authorized by Musammat Himaiti to pay interest to the creditors on the amount secured by the promissory note. Reliance has been placed upon the endorsement on the back of the promissory note, the material portion of which has already been set out above. The said endorsement is no more than an admission on the part of Jamil Husain that he was authorized by Musammat Himaiti to make the payment on her behalf and that the payment was made both for himself and her. Under Section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them. The said admission cannot be used in evidence against Musammat Himaiti or her legal representatives. Where money is borrowed by several persons under a joint contract, the payment of interest by one of the contracting parties cannot be available to the creditor to save limitation against the other contracting party. This is clear from Section 21 (2) of the Indian Limitation Act. We have already noticed that in making the payment Jamil Husain was not the authorized agent of Musammat Himaiti. Under the circumstances, the said payment cannot, he made use of by the creditor so as to extend the period of limitation against Musammat Himaiti or her legal representatives. We are of opinion that the case has been properly decided by the Court below. We dismiss this application with costs.