This appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the II Addl. Sub Court, Kozhikode in O.S.No.482 of 1995. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/- from the plaintiff on 26.3.1992 and had agreed to repay the amount at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- on 30.6.1992 and the balance on 30.10.1992. The plaintiff did not get the amount. Hence the suit.

2. The defendant, on the other hand, would contend that he had executed an agreement, but it was under different circumstances. According to him, the plaintiff and defendant were partners and while the partnership was dissolved towards the good will it was agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the plaintiff and it was for that purpose, the agreement was executed. It is further contended that- the amount due under the agreement has been paid before December 1992 and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. It is also contended that the suit claimed is barred by limitation. After analysing the materials the trial court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff and it is against that decision, the defendant has come up in appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. Let me first consider about the execution of Ext.A1. Since the execution of Ext.A1 is admitted when the party wants to retract from the contents of a document, it is strictly not permissible under law, but it can be had by virtue of a collateral agreement. There is no such collateral agreement in this case. The terms and conditions in Ext.A1 does not create any suspicion in the mind of anybody and it really speaks about a loan transaction of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore the contention of the defendant that it was executed as a consideration for the good will of the business cannot be accepted. So, by virtue of Ext.A1, the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as stipulated in the document.

4. The next point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant is the question of limitation. According to him, the agreement is enforcible only under the terms and conditions incorporated under Article 19 of the Limitation Act. Article 19 of the Limitation Act would state that for money payable for money lent, the time is three years when the loan is made. So, the learned counsel would contend that since three years have lapsed from the date of loan, necessarily Article 19 conies into play and therefore the suit is not barred by limitation. Ext.A1 agreement is dated 26.3.1992. So, it is contended that since the suit is filed only on 17.7.1995, the suit is barred by limitation. If it is Article 19 that is applicable, then the contention of the defendant has to be accepted.

5. I had perused the section as well as the commentaries and it has been stated that(Article 19 applies to loans where there is no express agreement made as to its repayment whereas Article 21 applies to a loan where there is an agreement which shall be repayable on demand. So in order to attract Article 19 there should not be any time stipulation for the payment of the amount. In a case coming under Article 21 of the Limitation Act, the subject is that it is payable on demand. When there is a clause fixing the time for repayment and there is no clause regarding payment on demand, then as held by the trial court it is only a residuary Article 113 of the Limitation Act that will apply. When Article 113 of the said Act applies, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs.10,000/- is liable to be paid on 30.6.1992 and the balance is liable to be paid on 30.10.1992. So, it is contended at least that so far as it relates to Rs.10,000/- it is barred by limitation. It is at this juncture, reliance is placed on Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Section 18 of the Limitation Act deals- with the valid essentials of an acknowledgment. That Section requires (1) an admission or acknowledgment, (2) such acknowledgment must be in respect of any property or right, (3) it must be