The main legal point established in the judgment is that the time for repayment of a loan starts when a demand is made, and the demand was made within the limitation period, thus the suit was not barred by limitation.

1. This is an appeal by the first defendant. The suit was one for realisation of money. The short facts for the disposal of this appeal are these.

2. The first defendant is a Private Family Trust. The administration of the Trust is controlled and managed by as elected committee. The present convenor is one M. Karunakaran Pillai. The 2nd defendant is the former convenor of the first defendant Trust. The plaintiff is also a member of the Trust.

3. On five occasions the Trust received loans totalling an amount of Rs. 21,000/- from the plaintiff. When the plaintiff demanded to repay the said sum of Rs. 21,000/- she was told by the 2nd defendant that the general body of the first defendant has decided to treat the said loan amount of Rs. 21,000/-as a deposit with the first defendant repayable on demand with interest not exceeding 7 per cent per annum from the income of the Trust to which the plaintiff also agreed to. The defendants did not repay the amount. The plaintiff demanded the amount with interest on 20-6-1986. The amount was not repaid. The first defendant issued a reply notice denying the liability of the first defendant. This letter caused the filing of the suit. The contention of the first defendant is that the suit is not maintainable either on facts or in law. There was no scheme for the Trust authorising the 2nd defendant to avail loan for the first defendant. The act of the 2nd defendant is without authority and is not binding on the first defendant. Further it was contended that the plaintiff did not advance any amount by way of loan to the first defendant. It was also contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

4. The court below considered the question regarding receipt of loan by the Trust. Considering the documentary evidence, Exts. Al to A5 receipts issued by the 2nd defendant for and on behalf of the first defendant and also the day book of the first defendant the court below found that the contention of the defendants that no amount was borrowed from the plaintiff is absolutely false and incorrect. There is ample evidence in the case to establish that the 2nd defendant was in charge of the Trust and he was authorised to receive loans for the Trust. The loans were taken for the construction of the buildings for the Trust. Ext. A9 is a copy of a compromise petition filed in O.S. No. 234/80. dw.1 the present convenor of the first defendant was the plaintiff in the above suit. It is pertinent to note that in the compromise petition all the acts done by the 2nd defendant and the committee were ratified.

5. Ext. A10 is a copy of the minutes of the first defendant which shows that on 9-e-1980 the general body of the first defendant Trust decided to treat the loan amount received by it as a deposit and further decided to pay interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum. The plaintiff alleged that she accepted the above decision. In the circumstances she demanded the amount from the first defendant. The defendants have no case that the amount has been paid. So the court below rightly found that the plaintiff is entitled to get the plaint amount with future interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum.

6. Learned counsel who appeared for the appellant did not contend the non-liability of the first defendant to pay the amount, but only submitted before us that the claim is barred by limitation. Admittedly the amount is kept by the defendants as a deposit payable on demand. The relevant Article of Limitation applicable in this case is Art.22 of the Limitation Act. It runs thus:

From the copy of the first defendant's minutes Ext. A10 it is clear and plain that on 9-e-1980 the general body of the first defendant Trust decided to treat the loan amount received by it as a deposit and this decision was accepted by the plaintiff. True a deposit is not a bailment of specific currency to be returned in specie but would only create the relationship of debtor and creditor. It is a loan under certain conditions. The dis