Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The short point regarding limitation which is raised with reference to the liability of the 2nd defendant, the son of the 1st defendant, is this. Both the father and the son executed a promissory note, Exhibit A, in renewal of certain other promissory notes executed by the father alone. Exhibit A is dated 27th April 1914 and the suit is instituted on 10th September 1917. Limitation is sought to be saved by a payment of Rs. 740 made on 6th November 1914 towards principal and interest due on Exhibit A The payment was actually made by one Khadir Moideen Taraganar on behalf of Aiyaswami Pillai. This Aiyasami Pillai had obtained a mortgage on the family property of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on the 26th October 1914 and one item of consideration for it was the sum of Rs. 740, which he undertook to pay to Krishnaiar, the person in whose favour Exhibit A was executed. The mortgage Exhibit M was written by the 2nd defendant, who also attested it. The respondents contention is that the 2nd defendant must be taken to have authorised his father to make the payment of Rs. 740 towards principal and interest due under Exhibit A. We think that is the proper interpretation t