1. The decision of the learned Judge cannot in our opinion, be upheld. The Subordinate Judge has found that the defendants put the plaintiff in possession of certain land a month after the execution of the promissory note of the 8th July 1897 and that the plaintiff and the defendants agreed that the plaintiff was to take the possession of this land as interest on the amount due to him under the promissory note. Under this agreement the plaintiff remained in possession of the land and enjoyed the produce as interest up till August 1902. The facts being as we have stated, we are of opinion that there was a payment of interest as such sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. Such a payment need not be in money. We follow the view taken by this Court in the case of Kullipara Pullamma v. Maddulu Tatayya I.L.R. (1896) 19 M. 340, where it was held referring to the decisions in Amos v. Smith I.H. & C. 238, Maber v. Maber L.R. 2 Ex. 153 and Hart v. Nash 2 C.M. & R. 337 as follows : 'The broad rule deducible from these cases, it seems to be, that though the payment need not be in money, but may be in goods, or even by a settlement of account between the parties, yet the payment must be of such a nature that it would be an answer in a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover the amount'. Reference may also be made to the case of Kariyappa v. Rachappa I.L.R. (1900) 24 B. 493 where the same rule adopted, and it is laid down that the test to be applied is whether the payment that has been made is of such a nature or that it would be a complete answer to a suit brought by the creditor to recover the amount. Applying this rule to the present case, it must be held that the requirements of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act have been satisfied. The defendants and the plaintiff having entered into an agreement under which the plaintiff was to take the produce of the land as interest on the principal amount due under the promissory note, the plaintiff could not have succeeded if he had subsequent to that agreement sued to recover such interest from the defendants. This is in our opinion the test that should be applied. Reference may also be made to the case of Ragho Shitaram v. Hari I.L.R. (1900) 24 B. 619. We allow this appeal, reverse the decision of the learned Judge and restore that of the Subordinate Judge with costs in this Court and before the learned Judge on revision.