JUDGMENT : 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. 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 made before the expiry of the period of limitation, (4) an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. But such an acknowledgment need not satisfy the exact nature of the property or the right claimed. It is manifest that the statement relied on must be in respect of the property or right claimed by the party relying on such a statement. Now I may refer to Ext.A3 which is projected as an acknowledgment of liability. Admittedly it is written by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant has admitted the same. There he narrated about the collection of the amount and his liability to pay amount to others of Rs.20,000/- and that he is running around here and there and he is not available in the shop and in the last sentence he states “xxx” It is dated 11.12.1992. When this document is tendered, the defendant would come forward with a case that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the surrender of the room and payment of cash and he had produced Exts.B3 and B4 wherein the plaintiff had demanded amount from the defendant. Ext.B2 is the agreement. Ext.B2 does not stipulate any particular amount. Ext.B3 only states that at least Rs.5,000/- is to be paid and in Ext.B4 it is stated that somehow or other the plaintiff has made Rs. 12,000/- and unless that amount is paid by the defendant, he will be in a very delicate situation. When examined as DW1 he would submit that in the chief examination itself that the plaintiff had sent letters for the purpose of getting money. He admits that Ext. A3 is a letter sent by him to the plaintiff. He would add that the amounts under Exts.B3 and B4 were paid after Ext,A3. It has to be remembered that the parties decided to put an end to whatever transaction it be, by virtue of an agreement. It is reduced into writing. When the amount is paid, receipts would be obtained. Therefore the plea of discharge without any document is not acceptable. Ext.A1 looms large. When that amount is not paid by voucher or receipt, then Ext.A3 as contended by the plaintiff can relate to that transaction alone. Admittedly by virtue of Ext.A3 there is a jurial relationship between the debtor and creditor. When that amount is required, the person who owes the money request the other person to wait till January. Ext.A1 looms large. When that amount is not paid by voucher or receipt, then Ext.A3 as contended by the plaintiff can relate to that transaction alone. Admittedly by virtue of Ext.A3 there is a jurial relationship between the debtor and creditor. When that amount is required, the person who owes the money request the other person to wait till January. This letter is written in December and therefore it will operate as an acknowledgment of liability for all practical purposes as contemplated under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. 6. Learned counsel has raised a contention that Ext.A1 has to be treated as a bond. It only represents a mere monetary transaction between the parties with stipulation to pay the amount within a stipulated time. It only thus have a characteristic of an agreement and further this contention cannot be entertained regarding the inadmissibility that it is a bond for the reason that under the provisions of the Stamp Act, the objection has to be raised when it is tendered in evidence. Here no such objection is noted and therefore the said contention is also repelled. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant had cited before me a decision reported in Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and another ( 1999 (3) SCC 573 ) and he has specifically referred to paragraph 17 of the judgment wherein the Supreme Court held that where a party to the suit does not appear in the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. So far as this case is concerned, the execution of the agreement is admitted. Secondly, it is. the case of discharge that is pleaded. The burden is squarely on the defendant to establish the same. The plaintiff need adduce evidence only where it requires rebuttal. Here, from the materials it has been held that the evidence tendered itself is not satisfactory and therefore it does not require rebuttal and so the non-examination of the plaintiff is not fatal to the case. Therefore I concur with the judgment of the trial court and confirm the judgment and decree and dismiss the appeal without costs.