Limitation for money-recovery claims turns on factual foundation; Article 113 applied and the counter-claim was time-barred.

A money-recovery counter-claim was held to fall under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 rather than Article 22 because the admitted facts showed a conscious payment made in 1994, not a deposit or security pending settlement. On that factual foundation, the claim could not be recharacterised to attract a different limitation article. The concurrent findings that limitation had expired were supported by the record, and the counter-claim was therefore time-barred. The appeal was rejected on the limitation issue, and dismissal of the counter-claim was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants' counter-claim for recovery of money allegedly withheld by the bank was governed by Article 22 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and whether it was within limitation.

Analysis: The claim had to be tested on its factual foundation. The admitted position was that the amount was paid in 1994 and was not treated as a deposit or security pending final settlement. The appellants themselves had contemplated legal action at the relevant time but chose not to proceed immediately. On those facts, the counter-claim was one for recovery of money and not a claim attracting Article 22. The concurrent findings of the tribunals and the High Court that the matter was governed by Article 113 were based on the factual record and disclosed no error.

Conclusion: Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied, and the counter-claim was time-barred.

Final Conclusion: The appeal fails on the limitation question and the concurrent dismissal of the counter-claim is upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a money-recovery claim is founded on facts showing a conscious payment and not a deposit or security, the applicable residuary limitation provision will govern, and limitation cannot be extended by characterising the claim under a different article without the necessary factual basis.

---