Deposit versus loan classification determines limitation where repayment is intended only on demand or maturity.

Amounts advanced by the respondent to her husband were characterised as deposits, not loans, because the account books and surrounding circumstances showed they were intended as business capital with no immediate obligation to repay. The distinction turned on the repayment obligation: a loan is ordinarily repayable at once, while a deposit becomes repayable only on demand or at maturity. On that basis, the claim fell within the limitation rule applicable to deposits and was not time-barred. The decree in favour of the respondent was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the three sums advanced by the respondent to her husband were deposits or loans, and consequently whether the claim was within limitation under Article 60 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: The entries in the deceased husband's account books and the surrounding circumstances showed that the amounts were paid to be used as capital in his business and were not repayable forthwith on payment. A loan is ordinarily repayable immediately when advanced, whereas a deposit is characterised by the absence of an immediate obligation to repay and by repayment becoming due on demand or on maturity. On the facts, the cumulative evidence supported the conclusion that the sums were deposits and not loans. If the amounts were deposits, the suit was governed by the special limitation applicable to deposits and was not barred.

Conclusion: The three sums were deposits, not loans, and the claim was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the respondent was upheld and the defendants' appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A transaction is a deposit, rather than a loan, where the parties contemplate no immediate obligation to repay and repayment is to arise only on demand or on maturity; such a transaction attracts the limitation rule applicable to deposits.

---