Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, J.

1. This appeal raises the question whether the paternal grandmother of a Hindu minor is his lawful guardian when she happens to be his nearest living relation. From 1917 to 1924 the respondents father had on various occasions borrowed money from the appellant. On the 18th September, 1924, an account was taken and it was found that the respondents father owed the appellant an aggregate sum of Rs. 3,825 for which he executed a promissory note. The instrument was not properly stamped and therefore was not admissible in evidence. Realizing the defect the appellant filed a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Bellary for relief on the basis of a settled account. The date of the institution of the suit was 16th July, 1932, and unless the appellant was entitled to rely on certain endorsements on the promissory notes his suit was time barred. I should mention that the respondents father had died on the 4th October, 1924, and the suit was against the respondent as his legal representative. The respondents mother had predeceased his father and on his fathers death Neelamma, his paternal grandmother, took charge of his property. On the 6th September, 1927, she paid to the appellant a sum of Rs. 70 in reduction of the interest due on the loans and made an endorsement to this effect on the promissory note. On the 10th November, 1927, the District Court of Bellary acting under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act appointed one Basappa the guardian of the, minors property. On the 18th February, 1928, Basappa paid a sum in reduction of the amount due and made an endorsement on the promissory note recording the fact of payment. On the 18th July, 1929, Neelamma made another payment in reduction of the debt and this was also followed by an endorsement on the instrument. Basappa was then alive and was still the lawful guardian of the respondent, but he died a month later. The last payment to the appellant was made by Neelamma on the 25th August, 1929. This was a sum of Rs. 1,000 paid towards the principal. Again she made an endorsement on the promissory note recording the fact of payment. In order to save limitation the appellant has to rely on the endorsements made by Neelamma on the 6th September, 1927, and on the 25th August, 1929. The District Munsif and on appeal the District Judge of Bellary held that the suit was time barred. The appellant then filed this second appeal which has been placed before a Full Bench in view of conflicting decisions of this Court bearing on the question whether Neelarnma was under Hindu Law the lawful guardian of the minor when she made these particular endorsements.

2. Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act states that where interest on a debt is, before the expiration of the prescribed period, paid by the debtor or his agent duly authorised in this behalf, or where part of the principal of a debt is, before the expiration of the prescribed period, paid by the debtor or his agent, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made; provided that, save in the case of a payment of interest made before the 1st January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by the person making the payment. Section 21(1) states that the expression "agent duly authorized in this behalf" includes the persons lawful guardian. The fact that Neelarnma was the de facto guardian of the minor would not help the appellant. It was expressly held by a Bench of this Court (Madhavan Nair and Abdur Rahman, JJ.), in Nagayya v. Narasayya AIR1938Mad853 , that an acknowledgment of a debt made by a de facto guardian of a minor does not prevent the debt from being time barred. This decision followed a previous decision of this Court to the same effect. The wording of Section 2b and Section 21 of the Limitation Act leaves no room for doubt that this decision is correct. The appellant, however, says that Neelamma