Court affirms transaction as deposit, acknowledges retired partner's binding acknowledgment, denies money lender status. Plaintiffs awarded costs.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the transaction was a deposit, within the limitation period, acknowledgment by the retired partner was binding, and plaintiff was not a money lender initially. Costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the transaction (deposit vs. loan)
2. Limitation period for filing the suit
3. Impact of acknowledgment by a retired partner
4. Plaintiff's status as a money lender
5. Whether the money was given to the firm or partners

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Transaction (Deposit vs. Loan):

The court examined whether the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was a deposit or a loan. The distinction is crucial as it affects the limitation period for filing the suit. The court noted that a loan involves an immediate obligation to repay, while a deposit does not. The court referenced several precedents, including *Md. Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh* and *V.R.S. Annamalai v. Veerappa*, to elucidate this distinction. The court concluded that the transaction was a deposit, as the plaintiff regularly deposited and withdrew money, and the defendant credited interest annually. The relationship was akin to that of a depositor and a depositee, not a creditor and debtor.

2. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:

The court held that since the transaction was a deposit, Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date of demand. The demand was made on 2-12-1973, and the suit was filed on 15-12-1973, making it within the limitation period. The court also noted that part payments made by the defendants on 21-12-1970 and 28-1-1971 provided a fresh cause of action, further supporting the suit's timeliness.

3. Impact of Acknowledgment by a Retired Partner:

The defendants argued that the acknowledgment of liability by Lalit Kumar on 6-7-1970 was invalid as he had retired from the partnership on 31-3-1970. The court held that since no public notice of his retirement was given, as required under Section 72 of the Indian Partnership Act, the acknowledgment was binding on the firm. The court emphasized that the firm could not take advantage of its own failure to give public notice, and thus, the acknowledgment by Lalit Kumar was valid and binding.

4. Plaintiff's Status as a Money Lender:

The defendants contended that the plaintiff was a money lender and thus not entitled to interest and costs. The court rejected this argument, stating that the initial transaction was a deposit, not a loan. Even if the plaintiff later became a money lender, it did not affect the nature of the original transaction. The court held that the Money Lenders Act did not apply, as the plaintiff was not a money lender at the time of the initial deposit.

5. Whether the Money Was Given to the Firm or Partners:

The court addressed the issue of whether the money was given to the firm or its partners. It held that even if the money was given to a partner, it was for and on behalf of the firm. The court noted that partners have implied authority to receive payments for the firm. Therefore, the transaction was considered as one with the firm, and the firm was liable for the amount.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial court's judgment that the transaction was a deposit, the suit was within the limitation period, the acknowledgment by Lalit Kumar was binding on the firm, and the plaintiff was not a money lender at the time of the initial deposit. The court awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

---