Sir Philip Macdonell:-

This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction, given in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, and reversing a judgment of the Original Side of that Court which judgment had dismissed the plaintiff-respondent's action to recover various sums of money bailed by him to the defendant-appellant between the years 1923 and 1928. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent as plaintiff brought this action within time or whether his claim is barred under the Limitation Act 9 of 1908, and the answer to this question depends on what was the character of the bailment under which the plaintiff handed over and the defendant received these sums of money. If by that bailment the respondent must claim these sums of money as “money payable for money lent,” (Art. 57, Limitation Act) or as “money lent under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand,” (Art. 59, Limitation Act) then and in each case the period of limitation would be three years commencing from the date when the loan was made, and 14th April 1932, when the present action was brought, will admittedly have been more than three years aft