JUDGMENT 1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Plaintiff-Appellant to enforce a mortgage bond. The Defendants pleaded limitation. The first Court found for the Plaintiff and gave him a decree. On appeal the lower Appellate Court has reversed that decree holding that the suit is barred by limitation. In the last paragraph of the judgment, the learned Judge says, "the original mortgagee was a guardian acting for a minor and this suit is also brought by him in the same capacity. It is argued that limitation cannot run against the minor. Whatever would have been the effect if this suit were brought by the minor after attaining majority, I think that the guardian cannot claim any special benefit as regards limitation." In taking this view the lower Appellate Court was clearly in error, as it is opposed to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Phoolbas Koonwar v. Lala Jogeshwar Sahoy I. L. R. 1 Cal. 226 (1876); see also the case of Narendra Nath Pahari v. Bhupendra Narain Roy I. L. R. 23 Cal. 374 (1895). That being so, the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court must be set aside. 2. The next question is whether the case is to be remanded to the lower Appellate Court for the determination of the question of payment. 3. The learned vakil for the Appellant points out that there is no necessity for any remand, as the first Court in its judgment says :--"The onus of proving his allegation of payment rests on the Defendant No. 1. No evidence was offered on the point. What is more, the plea of limitation was founded upon the ground that the Plaintiff was never in possession of the mortgaged property which means in other words that he was never in enjoyment of its profits and no portion of the mortgage debt was paid thereby." 4. The payment pleaded being payment out of the profits, and there being no evidence in support of the plea of payment, which it is for the Defendants to prove, such plea must fail. That being so, we set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the first Court with costs in this Court as well as in the lower Appellate Court.