MOTIGAVRI Vs. NARANJI DWARKADAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant was the agent of the Jivraj Baloo Mills. The plaintiff and her deceased husband were creditors of that Mill to the extent of Rs. 20,000. On January 19, 1910, the defendant passed a havala for the debt due by the Jivraj Baloo Mills to the plaintiff and her deceased husband. The defendant passed a receipt on that day which is in these terms;- Received from Manecklal Amritlal Dave Esq. and his wife Bai Motibai the sum of rupees twenty thousand only being the amount in current account.

(2.) There is a balance of Rs. 8,000 odd due on that account at the date of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiff's husband died on or about April 13, 1910, and thereafter moneys were drawn against and payments made from the amount. The defence is that the suit is barred by limitation. The defendant contends that the amount was a loan under Art. 59 whereas the plaintiff contends that it was a deposit under Art. 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, and that in any case the defendant was, as regards the plaintiff, in the position of a banker.