- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Bhimanna Kumaji Sonar v. Venichand Fattechand Gujar
Factual and Procedural Background
The plaintiffs filed a suit to recover Rs. 800 and interest from the defendants. The amount was deposited with the defendants by their uncle, Vasudeo, who had been depositing his savings at the defendants' shop since before 1907. Vasudeo was given a pass-book recording deposits, interest, and withdrawals. As of October 27, 1916, a balance of Rs. 800 was due from the defendants, and notice for repayment was given on October 15, 1919. Vasudeo died in July 1918, and the plaintiffs claimed the amount under his Will, which devised the deposit to them.
The defendants principally defended the suit on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The core question was whether Vasudeo’s money was lent to the defendants or deposited with them.
The trial court found that there was a deposit and decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. However, on appeal, the decree was reversed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the money deposited by Vasudeo with the defendants was a deposit or a loan.
- Which provision of the Indian Limitation Act applies: Article 60 (deposit) or Article 69 (loan).
- Whether the defendants could be considered bankers to Vasudeo for the purpose of applying the limitation period.
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Arguments
- Vasudeo deposited his savings with the defendants, evidenced by a pass-book recording deposits, interest, and withdrawals.
- The balance of Rs. 800 was due and payable as per the pass-book and notice given.
- The claim was made under Vasudeo's Will after his death.
Defendants' Arguments
- The claim was barred by limitation.
- The money was lent, not deposited, thus invoking a different limitation period.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court examined the nature of the pass-book (Ex. 29) and found it resembled a khata (account book used in trading) more than a pass-book issued by a Post Office Savings Bank. However, unlike a typical khata which favors the trader, this account was always in favor of Vasudeo, the lender.
The court noted that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act, as amended in 1908, clarifies that money held by a banker payable on demand is treated as a deposit. It was unnecessary for the defendants to carry on business strictly as bankers; a person may place himself in the position of a banker with respect to a particular customer.
The facts showed Vasudeo was lending money to the defendants at a low rate of interest, and the defendants lent out that money at a higher rate, effectively conducting banking business. Therefore, the defendants were deemed Vasudeo's bankers, and his money was held as a deposit.
Consequently, Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act applied, not Article 69, affecting the limitation period relevant to the claim.
Holding and Implications
The court allowed the appeal and restored the decree of the Subordinate Judge in favor of the plaintiffs, with costs throughout.
The decision confirms that where a party holds money in a banking-like relationship, even absent formal banking status, the money is treated as a deposit under Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act. The limitation period for recovery is thus governed accordingly. No new precedent was set beyond the direct effect on the parties.
Macleod, C.J:— The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover Rs. 800 and interest from the defendants, which were deposited with the defendants by their uncle Vasudeo. They alleged that Vasudeo used to deposit his savings in the defendants' shop from before 1907, for which a pass-book was given to Vasudeo in which the deposit amount and its interest were entered by him, as also the amounts withdrawn; that on October 27, 1916, a balance was struck showing Rs. 800 due from the defendants and that notice was given to repay on October 15, 1919. Vasudeo himself died in July 1918 and the plaintiff's claim under a Will made by Vasudeo whereby this deposit amount was devised to them.
2. The principal defence raised by the defendants was that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation. That question would depend on whether Vasudeo's money was lent to the defendants or deposited with them.
3. The trial Court found that there was a deposit and gave a decree to the plaintiffs.
4. On appeal that decree was reversed. The Judge says:
“The deceased Vasudeo was a gold-smith and handed sums of money which Defendant No. 1 entered in a book Ex. 29. All sums received from Vasudeo and paid to him are entered in Ex. 29. This, book is described by the learned trial Judge as being in the nature of a pass-book, issued by the Post. Office Savings Bank. I have examined the book and find that it is not unlike a khata with regard to dealings with a trader, and resembles a khata more than a pass-book. Interest is calculated and credited at the end of every commercial year as in the case of ordinary khatas.”
5. The Judge considered it was a case of an ordinary khata; but a khata is generally in favour of the trader who, charges interest for the amounts due by his customers. As this account was always in favour of the lender, it certainly might be considered that Vasudeo was, depositing his savings at a low rate of interest with the defendants as his bankers, and that Ex. 29 was really in the nature of a pass-book. Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act was amended by the Act of 1908, so as to make it clear that a customer's money in the hands of his banker and payable on demand was a deposit.
6. It is not necessary to prove that the defendants were carrying on business only as bankers. A man might become a banker, or place himself in the position of a banker, with regard to a particular customer; and if the dealings between the lender and the borrower are such that the Court is satisfied that it could be said that the borrower is in the position of a banker, to the lender, then the money so lent could be considered as a deposit.
7. Now, in this case, the evidence shows that Vasudev was lending money to the defendants, at a low rate of interest and the defendants were lending out that money and other money deposited in a similar fashion at a higher rate. It was exactly in the nature of a banker's business. We, therefore, are of opinion that, on the facts of this case the defendants were Vasudeo's bankers and Vasudeo deposited his moneys with the defendants, so that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act applies, and not Article 69. We, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge, with costs throughout.
8. Appeal allowed.
Alert