SYED YAKOOB Vs. MOHD MOMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant has preferred this Second Appeal in a suit for the return of a deposit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff. The material facts are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for O. S. Rs. 1,800 alleging inter alia that he deposited O.S. Rs. 1,800 with the defendant under Exhibit P-1 and in spite of the issue of notice the amount has not been returned to him. On the other hand, the defendant in reply to the notice stated that the amount was not deposited with him but was given to him in connection with the various advances which were made by the plaintiff to the defendant by way of loan. This version of the defendant was disputed by the plaintiff.

(2.) In the written statement the defendant repeated what he had said in reply to the notice. His contention was that the plaintiff was lending him money as and when he required, for the purposes of carrying on his business. The plaintiff in all advanced Rs. 3,000 by way of loan to the defendant on various occasions for which a promissory note was executed by the defendant. After the accounts were settled the entire amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. His contention was that the amount under Exhibit P-1 was not a deposit, but a ' loan ' forming part of the said Rs. 3,000.

(3.) Upon these pleadings the trial Court framed appropriate issues and after recording the evidence of the parties dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The trial Court held that the suit transaction was a loan and not a deposit and that the suit is timebarred. The plaintiff therefore carried the matter in appeal. The appellate Court, reversing the findings of the trial Court, held that the transaction amounted to a deposit and not a loan. It also found that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case and consequently found the suit within limitation. As a result, the plaintiff's suit was decreed. Hence this Second Appeal by the defendant.