ORDER.- This is a revision by the plaintiff whose suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 414-23-P. was dismissed by the trial Court as barred by limitation. The defendant was a clerk under the plaintiffs till 31st December, 1956. He was taking advances by way of loans from the plaintiff from time to time and making payments towards the same. By an arrangement, from his salary an amount was credited monthly towards the loans. An advance of Rs. 500 was made on 8th May, 1950, and a further advance of Rs. 500 on 20th June, 1950. The last advance made by the plaintiff was on 31st March, 1953; for the amounts thus due in the defendant-debtor’s own hand, the defendant being also the clerk of the plaintiff, entries are found crediting a portion of the salary, the last such credit being on 29th October, 1956, of a sum of Rs. 20. As on that day after giving credit the amount due to the plaintiffs was Rs. 414-5-9. The suit was filed on 27th April, 1959. The lower Court rejected the contention that the account was mutual open and current account and, in my view, rightly. The decisions relied upon in the lower Court, as if this would be case of accounts stated, were on the facts held not to apply and properly. Mr. P. C. Parthasarathi Ayyangar, learned Counsel for plaintiffs submits that this is neither a case of accounts stated nor a case of current, mutual and open account but a case where the debt was saved from limitation, under section 20 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel submits that a sum of Rs. 20, the salary due to the defendant, has been credited towards the consolidated amount of the loans on 29th October, 1956, and this credit was in the handwriting of the defendant-debtor himself. It is therefore submitted that section 20 directly applied to the case and saved the loan from the bar of limitation. It is pointed out that section 20 does not require the signature of the creditor. It is therefore submitted that section 20 directly applied to the case and saved the loan from the bar of limitation. It is pointed out that section 20 does not require the signature of the creditor. Section 20 of the Limitation Act of 1908 reads thus: ‘‘Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the persons liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his duly authorised agent, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that, save in the case of a payment of interest made before the first day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment". So, the acknowledgment of the payment must be either in the handwriting of the debtor or signed by him if written by anybody else. The learned District Munsif is of the view that section 20 cannot save limitation in this case as the defendant did not himself make any cash payment and further the entries were not made by him in the capacity of a debtor but in the capacity of the clerk of the firm. With reference to the first part of the reasoning, it cannot be said that there is no payment by the defendant. The money credited is money payable to the defendant, an employee by the employer. It is the salary which had to be paid to him. Without the employee’s consent, the plaintiff would have no right to appropriate the sum towards the loan due to him. The loan due by. the defendant was quite an independent transaction from the salary payable to the defendant. The plaintiff as employer could not lawfully appropriate without the consent of the defendant any portion of the salary for his debt. That being so, when the debtor in the books of accounts of the plaintiff makes an entry crediting a portion of his salary towards the debt, it tantamounts to the debtor paying his own money to the creditor towards the loan. It would be hypertechnicality to insist on money passing first to the defendant and then repassing to the plaintiff before making an entry. It would be hypertechnicality to insist on money passing first to the defendant and then repassing to the plaintiff before making an entry. Equally it cannot be said that when making the entry it was in a different capacity. There are no two juristic entities here. The clerk of the firm to whom the salary amount is payable by the employer in effect credits himself the said amounts and debits the employer towards the loan due by him to the employer. This entry by the clerk would be a sufficient answer and discharge so far as the employer is concerned in respect of any claim by the clerk for the amount as salary. Equally on the basis of the entry it will be open to the clerk to plead payment 6f this amount towards the debt. That being so, it cannot be said that the entry as to the payment was in a different capacity and would not come under section 20 of the Limitation Act. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in this connection referred me to a decision of this Court in Swaminatha Pillai v. Mondaiyan1. In that case, it was held that where the plaintiff was able to prove that he received the ‘interest’ through the labour of the defendants till within three years before suit, his claim is not barred by limitation. This only shows that the payment need not be in actual cash provided it is equated to cash and cash value given. In this case, we need not go to that extent as it is actual cash payable to the defendant, the defendant giving credit for himself and in favour of the employer in the books of account of the employer. The plea of limitation therefore fails. While this is so, taking into consideration that the defendant has been an employee of the plaintiff and in pursuance of an arrangement, he has been crediting his employer month by month with a portion of his salary, Mr. P. C. Parthasarathi, appearing for the plaintiffs, submitted his client’s willingness to be satisfied with a decree for a sum of Rs. 200 as on this date inclusive of interest and costs uptil this date. Learned Counsel for the defendant, as instructed by his client, prays for time to make this payment, the parties agreeing to a decree for Rs. 200 as on this date. 200 as on this date inclusive of interest and costs uptil this date. Learned Counsel for the defendant, as instructed by his client, prays for time to make this payment, the parties agreeing to a decree for Rs. 200 as on this date. The decree of dismissal of the lower Court is therefore reversed and there will be a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 200 inclusive of interest uptil this date. The said amount will carry interest at six per cent from this date. The defendant will have six months’ time to make the payment and the decree shall not be executable during that period. The parties shall bear their own costs throughout. The revision is allowed accordingly. R. M. ----- Revision allowed.