2017 (5) TMI 1766 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery - it was argued by appellant that the amount deposited by the appellant in the bank accounts of the respondents was to be returned to him on demand and as such Article 22 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable and the limitation will start from the date of the demand i.e. 22.2.2013 - HELD THAT - The evidence of the appellant before the Trial Court having deposited ₹ 2,21,000/- in the bank account of proprietary firm of respondent No. 1, ₹ 1,49,000/- in the bank account of respondent No. 1 and ₹ 1,50,000/- in the bank account of respondent No. 3 totalling to ₹ 5,20,000/- went unrebutted and unchallenged since the respondent Nos. 1 3 were ex-parte before the learned Trial Court. All these deposits were made by the appellant in the respective accounts of the respondent Nos. 1 3 in the month of May, 2010. The suit was filed by the appellant on 23.8.2014. The appellant has not placed on record any written agreement executed between the parties. Article 19 of the Act applies to a suit for recovery of money payable on account of money lent for which the period of limitation is three years and time from which the period of limitation begins is the date when the money is lent. Under Article 22 of the Act, for money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, including money of a customer in the hands of his banker so payable, the period of limitation is three years and time from which the period of limitation begins is the date when the demand is made. There is no evidence that the money deposited by the appellant in the accounts of respondent Nos. 1 3 was payable on demand. The appellant had not tendered in evidence the alleged letter dated 22.2.2013 addressed to the respondent No. 1 vide postal receipt Ex. PW-1/19. Postal receipt is not connected to the letter - the appellant has not even requested to adduce additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC. Even the photocopy of the letter which is placed on record along with Ground of Appeal is addressed to respondent No. 1 and not the respondent No. 3 - the appellant cannot be allowed to claim that his suit is covered under Article 22 of the Act. The appellant fails to show that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and the Trial Court has arrived at a right conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation - there are no merit in the appeal - the appeal is dismissed with cost of ₹ 25,000/- payable to respondent No. 2.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to judgment and decree for recovery of a sum of money. Application of Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 19 and 22.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a suit seeking recovery of a sum of money deposited in bank accounts of the respondents. The appellant alleged that the deposits were made based on assurances from the respondents and were to carry interest at 24% per annum. Despite the appellant's efforts to recover the amount, the respondents did not comply, leading to the legal action.

The Trial Court found that the suit, filed in August 2014, was barred by limitation as the deposits were made in May 2010. The appellant argued that the limitation period should start from the date of his demand for the return of the deposited amount in February 2013, invoking Article 22 of the Limitation Act. However, the Trial Court applied Article 19 of the Act, which deals with money lent, stating that the suit was time-barred.

The appellant's evidence of deposits totaling to ?5,20,000/- was unchallenged as the respondents were ex-parte. However, the appellant failed to provide a written agreement or additional witnesses to support his claim that the money was payable on demand with interest. The Court highlighted the differences between Article 19 and Article 22 of the Act, emphasizing the need for evidence of demand for the application of Article 22.

The Court concluded that the suit was not within the three-year limitation period under Article 19, as the deposits were made in May 2010 and the suit was filed in August 2014. As the appellant did not establish that the deposits were payable on demand, the Court upheld the Trial Court's decision that the suit was time-barred. The appeal was dismissed, with costs imposed on the appellant.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the application of the Limitation Act, specifically Articles 19 and 22, in a case concerning the recovery of deposited sums of money. The Court's analysis focused on the timing of deposits, the lack of evidence supporting the money being payable on demand, and the appropriate limitation period under the Act.