The main legal point established is that the specific agreement regarding repayment influenced the court's decision on the applicable article of the Limitation Act and the bar of limitation.

The plaintiff in O.S.No. 276 of 1985 on the file of the Sub Court, Palghat is the appellant.

2. The defendant availed of a loan from the State Bank of India, Agricultural Development branch at Palghat for agricultural purposes. On his failure to repay the amount, the bank filed a suit against him as O.S.No.15 of 1981 before the Sub Court, Palghat for realisation of the amount. That suit was decreed. Pursuant to the decree revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the defendant. Notice was issued to him. The defendant applied for payment of the amount in instalments and accordingly, 'he was allowed to discharge his liability under the decree in 12 instalments at the rate of Rs.6,000/-. Even after the said order, defendant failed to comply with the order which resulted in the revival of revenue recovery proceedings against the defendant Again on the request of the defendant, he was permitted to remit the amount due for six instalments as a condition for deferring revenue recovery proceedings. While so, the defendant approached the plaintiff herein and requested him to remit the amount for six instalments and the plaintiff agreed to make the payments due for the six instalments on the distinct agreement that the defendant would repay the amount to the plaintiff soon after the payment of the sixth instalment with reasonable interest on demand. On the basis of the agreement the plaintiff paid to the concerned Village Officer an amount of Rs.18,000.50 on 30-7-1982 and Rs.6,000/- each on 20-10-1982, 20-11-1982 and 20-12-1982. Thus altogether, the plaintiff paid Rs.36,000.50 for and on behalf of the defendant and obtained receipts from the Village Officer, Muthalamada produced as Exts.A1 to A3. Receipt for Rs.6,000/- paid on 20-10-1982 was, however, lost and was thus not produced. On payment of the entire amount of Rs.36,000.50, the plaintiff demanded repayment with 12% interest per annum. The defendant failed to repay the amount which led to the filing of the suit.

3. Defendant filed a written statement denying all the material allegations in the plaint. The defendant specifically denied the agreement set up in the plaint regarding repayment of the amount. Further, the defendant raised the contention that the suit is barred by limitation. It was also contended that the payments alleged to have been made by the plaintiff was made by utilising the funds supplied by him and that the plaintiff was not having sufficient funds to make the payments alleged in the plaint.

4. On a consideration of the pleadings and evidence in the case, the trial court came to the conclusion that the defendant had no money with him during the relevant period to discharge the decree debt. The court also found that the plaintiff had sufficient funds at his command to remit the amount of Rs.36,000.50 towards the instalment payments agreed to be remitted by him. It was found by the court that the amount remitted by the plaintiff was for and on behalf of the defendant and that too on the basis of the agreement pleaded in the plaint regarding repayability of the amount by the defendant. After entering the above findings, the learned judge found that except the payment of Rs.6,000/- effected on 20-12-1982, the rest of the payments are beyond three years from the date of the suit, and as such the suit in regard to such payments is barred by limitation and a decree was granted only for the recovery of an amount of Rs.6,000/- with 12% interest per annum. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit in part, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

5. Challenging the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant has filed a memorandum of cross-objection. Even at this stage, I may point that the memorandum of cross-objection filed by the defendant-respondent cannot be sustained in law in view of the dismissal of an independent appeal filed earlier by the respondent himself as A.S.NO.315 of 1988. By the dismissal of A.S.No. 315 of 1988, the judgment