S.N. Modi, J.
1. This first appeal by the plaintiff Sohan Lal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge,Churu, dated 30.9.72 in a money suit.
2. The facts briefly stated are that on 10.4.65 corresponding to Chait Sud 9, Smt. 2022, the defendant respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from the plaintiff and executed a rukka in his own handwriting in favour of the plaintiff with stipulation to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of nine percent per annum. On 11-3-68 corresponding to Pnagan Sudi 12, Smt. 2024 the defendant repaid Rs. 500/- through his agent Surajmal who made an endorsement on the back of the rukka and signed it Subsequently, on 21.9.68 the defendant also wrote a letter to make repayment by Ramnavmi, that is, on Chait Sudi 9, Smt. 2026. When the loan was not repaid, the plaintiff brought the suit out of which this appeal arises, on 5.4.62 for the recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. In the plaint it was alleged that the payment dated 11.3.68 was sufficient to extend the period of limitation. The defendant contested the suit and completely denied baving borrowed Rs. 10000/- from the plaintiff. He also denied the payment of Rs. 500/- through Surajmal. He admitted the body of the rukka to be in his hand-writing but denied that he signed the rukka and made the signatures of the stamps affixed there on. According to him, he wrote the body of the rukka in lieu of old debt due from him by the plaintiff The learned Additional District Judge held that the rukka had be n duly proved but the claim was barred by limitation He accordingly dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court. The defendent-respondent though served has not put in his appearance to contest this appeal. The learned Additional District Judge has found that since Suraj mal was lot the holder of the general power of attorney on behalf of the defendant be was not duly authorised agent within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This finding cannot be accepted as correct. In my opinion, it is not necessary that a mukhtiarnama or written authority be given to a person in order to constitute that person as a duly authorised agent Under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Surajmal has appeared in the witness-box as PW 1 and he has stated that the defendant gave him Rs. 500/- at Gauhati with instructions to pay the amount to the plaintiff at village Parihara in part payment of the debt of Rs. 10,000 due from him and back of the rukka. He further says that in accordance with the instructions of the defendent, he paid the amount of Rs. 500/- to the plaintiff at village Parihara and made an endorsement on the back of the Rukka and signed it. He further proves the endorsement between A to B on the rukka (Ex.1).
3. I have carefully examined the statement of PW 1 Surajmal & see no good ground to disbelieve his testimony. The defendant in his statement denied having sent Rs. 500/- through Surajmal but he has been rightly found even by the lower court to be a liar. No reliance can therefore be placed on the testimony of the defendant. It may be pointed out that PW 1 Surajmal is related to the defendant as well as to the plaintiff. Both of them are related to him as uncle. It is difficult to believe that Surajmal made the payment without the authority of the defendant Surajmal acted as an agent of the defendant and he was duly authorised to make part payment of the debt. Since the part payment Awards the debt was made by Surajmal as the duly authorised agent of the defendant before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, the suit which was instituted on 5.4.69 is within time.
4. I therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the court below& decree the suit with costs. The defendant shall pay interest at the rate of six percent per annum from date of the suit to the date of the decree and from the date of the decree to the date of realisation. As the defendant has not contested the appeal, I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this appeal.