( 1 ) THE defendants are the appellants. The suit it filed for recovery of Rt. 21,997. 02 being the balance due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1963 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 1st plaintiff for Rs. 20,000/- payable with compound interest at 1. 03% p. m. The averments in the plaint are that the plaintiffs are members of Hindu joint family and the 1st plaintiff is the manager there of and defendants are also members of hindu joint family of which the 1st defendant is the manager. The 1st defendant for family necessity executed a promissory note dated 7-8-1963 for Rs, 20,000/- in favour of 1st plaintiff promising to pay the said amount with interest at 1 03% p. m. yearly compound. The 1st defendant borrowed cash of Rs. 10,700/-on 7-8-1963 and the balance comprises the amounts due to the 1st plaintiff under the prior promissory notes. On 25-9-1965 the 1st defendant paid Rs. 5,911. 44 p. towards interst and Rs. 700/- towards principal and on 15-5-1966 Rs. 10,000/- was paid and was endorsed on the back of the suit promissory note. The 1st defendant also paid Rs. 5/- on 28-4-1969 and made an endrosement on the suit pronote acknowledging his liability. The defendants family is an Income-tax assessee at all material times and therefore not entitled to the benefit of act IV of 1938.

( 2 ) THE plea of the 1st defendant and also adopted by defendants 2 to 4 is as follows: The suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties and causes of action. The defendants are agriculturists and so they are entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The calculation of the suit amount is not correct and the interest stipulated is exorbitant, excessive and illegal. The plaintiff are not entitled for interest over and above 51/2% p. a. The allegation that the defendants family is Income-tax assessee at all material times is denied. The defendants family was not at all Income-tax assessee during the crucial dates of borrowing and as such the defendants are entitled for the benefits of Act IV of 1938. The plaintiffs are not entitled for the interest over and above 51/2% p. a. If the interest is calculated on the amounts paid by the defendants on several occasions, nothing wou d be dus on the suit promissory note. The 1st plaintiff obtained the thumb impression of 1st defendant on 28-4-1969 without collecting the amount of Rs. 5/- alleged to have been paid on that day just to keep the suit promissory note debt in time and therefore there is no acknowledgment of the debt and hence the suit is barred by limitation.

( 3 ) ON the above pleadings the following issues were framed:1. Whether defendnts are agriculturists entitled to benefits of Act iv of 1938? 2. Whether 1st defendant is an ineometax assessee? 3. Whether defendants 2 to 4 are not liable to the suit debt? 4. Whether correct amounts are claimed in the plaint? 5. Whether the 1st defendant has not paid RE. 5/- on 28-4-1969 as alleged by him? 6. Whether lat defendant paid Rs. 8,500/- as alleged in the written statement? 7. To what relief?

( 4 ) REGARDING issuss 1 and 2 the court below held that though the defendants have saleable interest in the agricultural land at the crucial times they are not entitled to the benefits of Act IV of 1938 as the defendants were income-tax assessees. Issues 3 and 4 were answered in favour of the plaintiff Regarding issue No. 5, the court below found that the 1st defendant paid Rs. 5/- on 28-4-1969 and constitutes acknowledment and thus the suit is not barred by limitation. Issue No. 6 is also found against the defendants. On these findings the suit ia decreed with costs as prayed for.

( 5 ) THIS appeal is confined to issues 1,2 and 5 only. Regarding issue No. 5, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the thumb impression was extorted from the 1st defendent as he was illiterate and as such the alleged payment of Rs. 5/-does hot operate as acknowledgment. On an apprisal of the evidence and circumstances the court below came to the conclusion