Abdul Hakim Khan, J.

1. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants on the allegations that the defendants were the members of the Joint Hindu Family and that the defendant No. 2 was the Karta that they had money dealings with the plainttffs. On various dates different sums of money and goods were supplied to the defendants and those with which we are mainly concerned are the amounts of Rs. 150 (given on 5-9-51) and Rs. 491 (given on 7-9-51). Both these sums were put in the account of defendants and defendant No. 2 as the Karta signed the entries. On adding up all the various sums, an amount of Rs. 640/12 was found due by the defendants. On 13-2-53, defendant No. 2 (Karta) paid Rs. 100 and signed the entry of payment in plaintiffs account-book. The plaintiffs filed this suit for the recovery of blance due. In their written statement, defendant No 2 (Karta) admitted dealings with the plaintiffs. He also admitted that a sum of Rs. 153 was due, but denied borrowing Rs. 491. He also admitted payment to the plaintiffs of a sum of Rs. 100 as alleged by the plaintiffs, though defendant No. 2 when examined denied this payment.

2. The trial Court held that the transaction prior to 3-9-52 were time-barred and only parsed a decree for a sum of Rs. 66. On appeal, the first appellate Court held that the payment of Rs. 100 was made towards all the debts collectively and that this prevented the debts from being barred by the Statute of Limitation. Against this, the defendants have filed this second appeal.

3. The first appellate Court has held that the defendants made the payment of Rs. 100 and that at the time of the payment, the defendant did not intimate appropriation of the amount against any particular debt. In the circumstances, the option vested with the creditor to make such appropriation against any debt or all debts outstanding. It also held that entry in the Khata of the plaintiffs shows that the payment was appropriated towards all debts amounting to Rs. 640/12 outstanding against the defendants.

4. As a general rule there is no doubt that when a creditor has advanced different sums of money at different times, the period of limitation would run in respect of each sum from the date when it was advanced, but the facts of this case are different.

5. The question for determination in this appeal is that when the debtor has failed to intimate towards which debt the payment by him was to be appropriated, and if the creditor applies the payment towards all the debts outstanding would thus save limitation.

6. U. N. Mitra in his Tagore Lectures (1882) in Vol. I, page 423 has considered this position under the heading "The case of a payment, where there is more than one debt". He has referred to an English Treatise on the subject by Darby "Bosanquet" (2nd Edition page 710). The learned authors have observed that "if more than one debt is shown to have been due at the time of payment, a question arises whether such a payment was made towards all debts or was appropriated to any one or more, and if so, to which of them............... if the evidence shows that the payment was made on account of all debts (or for the matter of that if the payment was appropriated by the creditor towards all subsisting debts), it would prevent any of the debts being barred by statute.".

7. It is an indisputable proposition that part payment towards the principal amount by virtue of Section 20 of the Limitation Act, keeps alive the debt. It, therefore, follows, that a payment appropriated by the creditor towards more than one debt by reason of Section 60 of the Contract Act, is sufficient to take the debt or debts out of the Statute of Limitation, provided such debts were not barred by Limitation at the date of payment

8. The finding of the first appellate Court is that payment of Rs. 100 was made by defendant No. 2 on 13-2-53, when all the debts were alive and that the defendants omitted to specify to which debt this sum would apply. In the circumstances the creditor had an option of appropriating the amount towards all the outstanding debts, which were admittedly not barred by limitation at the time of the payment of Rs. 100. The first appellate Court has held that this payment was appropriated by the plaintiffs towards all the outstanding debts. In the circumstances, it has been rightly held by the learned Additional District Judge that Section 20 of the Limitation Act has given a fresh period of limitation. And there is no doubt that the claim is not barred.

9. For reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed with costs.