RAM JANKI DEVI & ANR. versus M/S. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT

RAM JANKI DEVI & ANR. versus M/S. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT

The transaction was a deposit, not a loan. Limitation did not start until an unqualified demand was made; the suit was filed within the period prescribed. The evidence, including the letter and book entries, supported the respondent's claim that the sum was deposited and not lent. The absence of appellant's documents and their failure to testify further weakened their case.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Janki Devi & Anr.; Respondent: M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 January 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Allahabad High Court in Original Suit No. 1 of 1964, Dated August 3, 1965
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deposit Vs Loan, Limitation, Interpretation of Mercantile Transactions
Civil Law Deposit Vs Loan Limitation Interpretation of Mercantile Transactions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Janki Devi & Anr.

Appellant

M/s. Juggilal Kamlapat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Allahabad High Court in Original Suit No. 1 of 1964, Dated August 3, 1965

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was deposited under an agreement and payable on demand, or was a loan made on 30 December 1942
  2. 2 Whether there was a demand for part of the amount in 1943 and limitation would start from that date

Ratio Decidendi

The transaction was a deposit, not a loan. Limitation did not start until an unqualified demand was made; the suit was filed within the period prescribed. The evidence, including the letter and book entries, supported the respondent's claim that the sum was deposited and not lent. The absence of appellant's documents and their failure to testify further weakened their case.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs