(1.) The question for determination in this appeal is as to whether the transaction in question is in substance a loan as under Section 2 (12), Bengal Money lenders Act or a deposit of money as under Sub-clause 'a' of Clause (12) of Section 2 of the same Act. The trial Ct. held in favour of the defendant treating the transaction as a loan. The learned Dist. J. interpreted the transaction as being a deposit.
(2.) The transaction in question is evidenced by Ex. 1 described as a deed indicating the terms of a certain amount deposited with the defendant It appears that the plaintiff resp. has deposited with the defendant certain items of ornaments. In the presence of common friends the value of those ornaments was fixed at Rs. 2150. The defendant was to pay Rs. 15 per month as interest for the said amount. The said amount of interest was the only source of maintenance of the plaintiff If the payment of interest be in default for six consecutive months the plaintiff would be entitled to file a suit for the recovery of the deposited amount of Rs. 2150 together with the amount of unrealised interest. On regular payment of interest the principal amount of Rs. 2150 is to remain in deposit with the defendant so long as the plaintiff is alive. After her death a portion is to be spent for her sradh ceremony & the balance is to be handed over to the Bishnupur Goshala in the name of the plaintiff If such payment is not made the authorities of the Goshala would be entitled to sue the defendant for the same.
(3.) The learned Dist. J. had held that the transaction was in the nature of a deposit & even if it were a loan it was a commercial loan. According to him it was to be presumed that the defendant being a businessman he used the sale proceeds of the ornaments for the purpose of the business of the firm. It has been held that there is no such presumption in law & there being no evidence that the transaction was in the nature of a commercial loan the conclusion reached by the learned Dist. J., cannot be accepted.