1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of the amount due under an instrument purporting to be a promissory note executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant on 15.1.1122 and endorsed

by the latter to the plaintiff. Ext. B is the document in question. The 1st defendant admitted having executed Ext. B but he contended that it was not supported by consideration and that the suit was barred by limitation. After trial, the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. After trial, the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Findings were not entered on the other issues as the learned Munsiff considered it unnecessary to do so, in view of his finding on the question of limitation. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal from the decree dismissing the suit.

2. The learned Munsiff held that Ext. B was not a promissory note but only a simple bond for which the period of limitation was only three years. He based his conclusion on the ground that an unconditional undertaking to pay a specified amount on demand was absent in Ext. B and that the latter portion of the instrument amounted to an indemnity clause which could not be brought within the d