Limitation for fixed-term deposits runs from maturity unless a clear acknowledgment or statutory exclusion extends time.

A fixed-term deposit was held to become due on its maturity date because the receipt did not show any express or implied agreement that repayment was on demand, so limitation ran from that date. Neither the Board resolution nor the balance-sheet saved limitation, as the resolution referred only to an earlier proposed settlement and the balance-sheet was not proved as a valid acknowledgment of the specific liability. Time spent in liquidation proceedings was also not excluded, since the statutory requirements were not shown. The claim was therefore time-barred and the decree dismissing the suit was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suit was barred by limitation, having regard to the due date of the deposit receipt and the plea that the amount was payable on demand. (ii) Whether the Board resolution and the balance-sheet amounted to valid acknowledgments of liability so as to save limitation. (iii) Whether the time spent in the liquidation proceedings could be excluded under the law of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the suit was barred by limitation, having regard to the due date of the deposit receipt and the plea that the amount was payable on demand.

Analysis: The deposit receipt was for a fixed period and stated that interest would cease on the due date. The surrounding course of dealings did not establish any express or implied agreement that the amount was repayable on demand. The amount therefore became due on the stated maturity date, and limitation ran from that date.

Conclusion: The plea that the amount was payable on demand failed, and limitation commenced on the due date of the deposit receipt.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board resolution and the balance-sheet amounted to valid acknowledgments of liability so as to save limitation.

Analysis: The Board resolution referred only to an earlier proposed settlement and did not acknowledge the liability arising under the deposit receipt in question. The balance-sheet could not be treated as a valid acknowledgment because its due passing was not established, and the discretionary presumption under the Commercial Documents Evidence Act was not warranted on the facts.

Conclusion: Neither the Board resolution nor the balance-sheet saved limitation by acknowledgment.

Issue (iii): Whether the time spent in the liquidation proceedings could be excluded under the law of limitation.

Analysis: The liquidation proceedings were not properly brought on record in the courts below, and the statutory requirements for exclusion of time were not shown to have been satisfied.

Conclusion: The claim for exclusion of time under the limitation law failed.

Final Conclusion: The claim was time-barred in law, and the decree dismissing the suit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A fixed-term deposit becomes payable on its due date unless an express or clearly implied agreement makes it payable on demand, and an alleged acknowledgment saves limitation only if it clearly refers to the very subsisting liability and is supported by admissible proof.

---