JUDGMENT Devadoss, J. 1. The only point in this Letters Patent Appeal is whether the authority given to Karuppanna Pillai, Muthukaruppa Pillai and Arumugam Pillai under Ex. A was such as would justify their paying any amount towards interest due on the bond. The learned Judge who heard the second appeal held that the authority did not extend to the payment of interest as such. The words in the Tamil document are (Editor: The text of the vernacular matter has not been reproduced. Please write to mean for paying towards the amount of the bond, i. e., the principal and interest due on the bond. When an agent is authorised to pay an amount towards the total amount of the bond the authority extends to his paying an amount towards the interest due on the bond, for, the total amount of the bond includes principal and interest; and when there is no restriction on the authority given to the agent that he should pay only towards the principal it cannot be held that the general authority to pay towards the total amount of the bond is confined to paying-only towards the principal. Where the authority is specific, that is to say, where the agent is authorised only to pay towards the principal, the agent will not be justified in paying towards interest. But where there is a general authority to pay towards the total amount of the bond, the authority cannot be cut down to mean that the agent is authorised to pay only towards the principal and not towards interest. In this case the agents have paid certain amounts towards interest and the payment is endorsed on the bond which is marked as Ex. A-1. As interest has been paid before the claim under the bond became barred, the appellant has a further period of limitation under Section 20 of the Limitation Act. The appellants suit is not therefore barred by limitation and he is entitled to a decree against defendants 2 and 4 who are respondents herein. The decrees of the learned Judge and the District Judge are therefore reversed and the appellant will have decree for the plaint amount and subsequent interest against defendants 2 and 4. A decree has already been passed by the District Munsif against defendants 1 and 3. The decrees of the learned Judge and the District Judge are therefore reversed and the appellant will have decree for the plaint amount and subsequent interest against defendants 2 and 4. A decree has already been passed by the District Munsif against defendants 1 and 3. The usual mortgage decree will be passed against all the defendants, i. e. defendants 1 to 4. Defendants 2 and 4 who are respondents herein will pay to the appellant the costs of this appeal, as well as costs of the second appeal and appeal to the Lower Appellate Court. Time for redemption, six months. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal having been posted for being spoken to this day on the question of the rate of subsequent interest the Court delivered the following 3. Subsequent interest willl be at the rate of 6 per cent. from the date of the decree of the District Munsif.