Abdur Rahman, J.

1. A suit was instituted by the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 288 and odd, being the price of paddy alleged to have been due by the respondents brother and verbally agreed to be paid by the respondent. The lower Court found in favour of the agreement but refused to give effect to it as it was held to be without consideration. The plaintiff has consequently come up in, revision.

2. It may not be quite correct to say that the agreement between the parties to the suit was without any consideration. The agreement by the plaintiff to release the defendants brother from liability - if it was legally enforceable at the time when the agreement was said to have been reached - was quite a good consideration for the new agreement between the parties to the suit. But if "the plaintiffs claim against the defendants brother was barred by limitation on the date on which this agreement was arrived at and the contract was not reduced to writing as required by Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, it would remain unenforceable. Mr. Govinda Menon contends, however, that this section has no application to an agreement which was entered into between the parties to the pr