1. In my opinion the lower Court had sufficient evidence of conduct in the series of endorsements to be found on the promissory note to justify it in the conclusion at which it arrived, that the defendants had each authorised the other to make acknowledgments so as to bind both. It is contended that with reference to Section 21, Clause 2, of the Limitation Act the mere acknowledgments are not themselves sufficient, but that there should be other extraneous evidence of authority, and a number of cases are cited in support of that view: Narayana Ayyar v. Venkataramana Ayyar 25 M. 220 (F.B.), Balasubramania Pillai v. S.V.B.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar 2 Ind. Cas. 309 : 32 M. 421 : 5 M.L.T. 102, K. R. V. Firm v. Sathyavada Sitharama Swami 21 Ind. Cas. 634 : 25 M.L. 501 : 37 M. 146. The respondent also relies upon the first of these cases (at page 234) as showing that in particular cases conduct coupled with other circumstances would be sufficient to warrant the conclusion that there was authority to acknowledge on behalf of both. The case of Birjmohun Lal v. Rudra Perkash Misser 17 C. 944 at p. 950 is also cited as a case where authority was implied from conduct. I think this case on the whole falls under this category and that the lower Court was justified in concluding on the evidence, afforded by the series of endorsements on the suit promissory note as showing the conduct of the defendants, that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had each implied authority to make acknowledgments so as to bind the other. I am inclined also to accept the contention for the plaintiff (respondent) that this is a case where even if there had been an erroneous decision on a question of law substantial justice has been done by the lower Court and that, therefore, I should be slow to interfere in revision. As I have said, however, I am of opinion that the conclusion of the lower Court is right.
2. This petition is dismissed/with costs.