9911796707
TMI Blog1964 (12) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id by the respondent to her late husband on 4-9-1948, 2-9-1953 and 22-4-1954, receptively. Her case was that these amounts were paid to the husband as deposits on the understanding that he might use the moneys as capital in his beedi business. Abdul Gaffur Sahib died on 12-11-1958, leaving his widow, the respondent, and the defendants as his heirs, and, it is common ground that the respondent is entitled to a quarter share and the defendants together to the remaining three-fourths. The main assets of Abdul Gaffur Sahib are stated to be a house bearing No. 126 Iqbal Street, Musalimpur, Vaniyambadi, and also a goodwill and trade name in a beedi business known as S. I. R. Beedi. The respondent claimed that the amounts due to the should be paid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to the source of the respondent. The defendants, as we consider, have not succeeded in establishing that the sum of ₹ 7000 really belonged to the respondent's husband. On 1-9-1948 by a sale deed of that date the respondent and her husband jointly conveyed a shop for a consideration of ₹ 7,500. The entry in the account books showing the advance of ₹ 7000 to Abdul Gaffur Sahib is dated 4-9-1948. The respondent's evidence is that she sold certain jewels of hers and out of the proceeds she purchased the shop from her husband. Her evidence in this regard is supported by the recital in Ex. A. 25, the sale deed dated 1-9-1948. Beyond the assertion of the defendants, there is nothing to show that the sum of ₹ 7000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jewels, she made up the sum of ₹ 4,500. We think that this is probable. We are therefore satisfied that the court below was right in finding that Abdul Gaffur Sahib in fact owned the three sums to the respondent. (7) That takes us to the question of limitation. As we said, the court below considered the nature of the three items of debt to be deposits governed by Art. 60 of the Limitation Act and the suit was, therefore, within time. The contention for the appellants is that this view is wrong and that the three items were no more than loans so that the suit would be barred by limitation. The point would, therefore, turn upon the distinction between a loan and a deposit. On that question learned counsel for the appellate invited ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te obligation on the deposit to seek out the depositor and repay him. He is to keep the money till asked for it. A demand by the depositor would, therefore, seem to be a nominal condition of the obligation of the depositee to repay . Earlier the Board pointed out that in effect a deposit is a loan under conditions. Although that is the distinction between a loan and a deposit, the question in a given case whether a debt is a deposit or a loan will be one of act which will have to be decided on the facts and circumstances in each case. The use of the term loan and deposit may not in itself be conclusive though, of course, it is a circumstances which would be taken into account. What should be regarded is the cumulative effect of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
