Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The question for decision in this appeal is one of limitation. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit and the Courts below have held that his action is barred by the law of limitation. We do not share this opinion.

2. On the 15th January, 1920, the plaintiff sold certain immovable property to one Mohamed Ghouse for the sum of Rs. 1,750 of which Rs. 1,150 was paid immediately. For the balance of Rs. 600, the purchaser executed a promissory note in favour of the Vendor. On the 16th July, 1920, Mohamed Ghouse mortgaged the property to the Catholic Permanent Fund. The mortgage debt was not repaid and the mortgagee was compelled to file a suit on the mortgage. As the result, a decree was obtained and in execution the property was sold, the respondent being the purchaser. On the 30th December, 1920, 9th January, 1921 and 5th July, 1924, Mohamed Ghouse made payments to account of the amount due on the promissory note which he had executed in favour of his vendor for Rs. 600. It is not disputed that these payments were suitably acknowledged and that each operated to extend the period of limitation.

3. In 1927, the appellant instituted a suit agai