A minor creditor is entitled to an extension of the period of limitation under Section 6 of the Limitation Act, and a purchaser of the equity of redemption subsequent to the commencement of Madras Act IV of 1938 is not entitled to have the mortgage-debt scaled down under the Act unless they prove that the mortgagor or the persons liable to pay the debt were agriculturists entitled to the benefits of the Act on the date of commencement of the Act.

SUBRAHMANYAM, J. : Defendants 5 and 6 appeal from the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of North Arcot dated 13-7-1956 in O. S. No. 9 of 1955 on his file.

2. The suit was to enforce a simple mortgage executed by one Abdul Karim. He died before the date of the institution of the suit. Defendants 1 to 4 are his sons. In execution of a decree for money which had been obtained against Abdul Karim one Rangappa had purchased the mortgaged properties in court auction. Rangappa died before the institution of the suit. Defendants 5 and 6 are his heirs.

3. On 7-2-1929 Abdul Karim and one of his sons, namely, the 2nd defendant, executed two promissory notes in favour of the plaintiffs grandfather Chidambaram Chettiar one for Rs. 1000 and the other for Rs. 2000. On the same date, namely, 7-2-1929, Abdul Karim executed the mortgage deed Ex. A. 4 in favour of Chidambaram Chettiar securing repayment of the debts borrowed under the promissory notes, namely, Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 for Rs, 1000 and Rs. 2000; Chidambaram Chettiar died on 7-4-1931, leaving behind him his undivided son Ramanatha.

Ramanatha died on 25-5-1934 leaving behind him his undivided son the plaintiff. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was instituted on 26-11-1953. The plaintiff had a guardian appointed for him under the Guardians and Wards Act. The guardian was discharged on 10-4-1951. The plaintiff alleged that he was born on 28-11-1929 and attained majority on 28-11-1950. He pleaded payments and endorsements made on the promissory notes and on the mortgage deed as saving limitation.

4. Defendants 1 to 4 did not appear in the lower court and do not appear in the appeal. Defendants 5 and 6 contested the suit. They pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation, and that they were entitled in any event to the benefits of Madras Act IV of 1938 and Madras Act I of 1955.

5. The learned District Judge held that the suit was in time, that the defendants 5 and 6 were not entitled to the benefits of Madras Act IV of 1938, but that they are entitled to the benefits of Madras Act I of 1955. The learned Judge passed a preliminary decree for sale accordingly. Defendants 5 and 6 have preferred this appeal.

6. The first point for determination in the appeal is whether the suit was in time. Ex. A. 1 is the promissory note executed by Abdul Karim and his son, the second defendant, on 7-2-1929 in favour of Chidambaram Chettiar for Rs. 1000. Ex. A. 2 is the promissory note executed by those two persons in favour of Chidambaram Chettiar on the same date for Rs. 2000. Ex. A. 4 is the mortgage executed by Abdul Karim in favour of Chidambaram Chettiar on the same date securing repayment of the debts of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 2000 borrowed under Exs. A. 1 and A. 2. We accept the evidence of P. W. 1 and find that Abdul Karim and his son (the second defendant) executed the promissory notes Exs. A. 1 and A. 2 and borrowed Rs. 1000 and Rs. 2000 respectively from Chidambaram Chettiar, and that Abdul Karim executed the mortgage Ex. A. 4 on the same date.

7. Abdul Karim and the 2nd defendant paid Rs. 100 towards the debt due on the promissory note Ex. A. 1 on 30-1-1932. The payment was endorsed on the promissory note and was signed by both these persons. The endorsement was written by P.W. 1. He had been a clerk under Chidambaram Chettiar, and after him under Ramanatha and was a clerk under the plaintiff when he gave evidence in the lower court. On the same date, namely, 30-1-1932, Abdul Karim and the 2nd defendant paid Rs. 100 towards the debt due on the promissory note Ex. A.2. The payment was endorsed on the note, the endorsement was written By P.W. 1 and signed by Abdul Karim and his son the second defendant) on 11-12-1934. Abdul Karim and the second defendant paid Rs. 5 towards the interest due on the promissory note Ex. A.1.

The payment was endorsed on the note and the endorsement was written by P.W. 1 and signed by Abdul Karim and the 2nd defendant. On the same date, namely, 1