1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover money lent on a hand-note executed by the defendant. The only question that was argued in the Court of first Appeal and the only question that has been argued, here is whether a payment of Re. 1 on the 14th Chait 1318 and a payment of another sum of Re. 1 on the 2nd Baisakh 1320 were payments on account of interest so as to give a fresh starting point under the provisions of Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is not disputed that when the payment was made, there was no express declaration as to whether the sum should be treated as payment on account of interest or payment on account of principal. But the facts found by the District Judge are these: that the 14th Chait 1318 was the Ramnavami day of that year and the 2nd Baisakh 132C was the Ramnavami day of that year. He has further found that in the case of money-lenders at the place in question the Ramnavami day is the beginning of the new year. He has further found that it is customary among these money-lenders to invite their customers to meet them on new year's day, that it is customary with the customers to make payments on that date and payments so made when interest is due, are credited to interest. He has further found as a matter of fact that when making payment, the respondent-defendant knew that the payments thus made, would be appropriated by the creditor to interest and he did not invite the creditor to take a different course. Under these circumstances and from these facts we think that the District Judge should have drawn the inference that payments so made with the knowledge that they would be appropriated to interest, were made with the intention that they should be so appropriated.
2. In that view we decree this appeal, set aside the decree of the Court of first appeal and restore that of the Court of first instance, with costs of this Court and of the lower Appellate Court.
3. Interest on costs at 6 per cent.