The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between loan and deposit, emphasizing the intention of the parties and the circumstances of the transaction in determining the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963.

1. Saradamma, the defendant, who filed the appeal, having died, supplemental appellants 2 to 4, who are her daughters and legal representatives, are prosecuting this appeal. The respondent-plaintiff, Kerala Varma Kochanujan Thampuran, the son-in-law of the defendant, filed the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,639.70 alleged to be the amount due to him on account of a sum of Rs. 10'000/-deposited by him on the 3rd Edavam 1122 (corresponding to 5th June 1947) with Rama Varma Kunhikidavu Thampuran, hereinafter referred to as Thampuran, the husband of the defendant and father of appellants 2 to 4. The trial court having decreed the suit in terms of the plaint, (but without any order as to costs), the defendant preferred this appeal.

2. The plaint averments, briefly stated, are as follows: The plaintiff had on 5-6-1947 deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/ -with Thampuran on his undertaking that he would repay it with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum; a sum of Rs. 5000/- was repaid by Thampuran on 2-7-58; thereafter he had executed a will dated 4-7-58, a true copy of which is Ext. A-3, which contained a recital acknowledging this liability and making a direction to the defendant for its discharge. Thampuran passed away on the 1st May 1960; thereafter the defendant filed Probate Application O.P. No. 5 of 1969 before the District Court, Ernakulam, a copy of which is Ext A-4, on 6-1-1969 with an affidavit, a copy of which is Ext. A-5, in support thereof. Item 3 in the Annexure to Ext. A-5 is a sum of Rs. 15,179 shown as the liability to the plaintiff from the estate of the deceased Thampuran; on 21-6-1973 the plain-fiff caused a lawyer notice, a copy of which is Ext. A-1, to be issued to the defendant demanding of her the payment of the amount outstanding in bis favour; the defendant having denied her liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff in her reply, Ext. A-2 dated 2-7-1973 sent through her lawyer, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit; and though the interest stipulated at the time of entrustment of the amount by the plaintiff to Thampuran was 6% per annum, in order to avoid controversy the plaintiff claimed interest only at the rate of 31/2% from the date of entrustment, that being the rate of interest admitted in Ext.A3 will.

3. The defendant in her written statement stated, inter alia, that the plaintiff did not make a deposit with Thampuran, but he (Thampuran) took a loan of Rs 10,000/- from the plaintiff on 5-6-1947 agreeing to pay interest at a rate not exceeding 31/2%; the statement in Annexure B to Ext. A-5 affidavit in support of Ext. A4 Probate Application was a mistake overlooking the payments already made in discharge of the liability to the plaintiff; the liability happened to be shown in Annexure B to Ext. A5 as Ext. A3 will referred to such a liability without having occasion to take into consideration the payments in full discharge of the liability to the plaintiff made on 28-8-1961; the defendant was advised that the entire liability without reference to the discharge effected by her might and ought to be shown in the Annexure to Ext. A5 as it was a liability on the estate as on the date of death of Thampuran; the plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation, besides the debt having been fully discharged; the defendant had a sum of Rs. 10,497.02 in her Savings Bank Account No. 11491 in Chittoor Cochin Post Office, and out of that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was withdrawn by Rajakumari the daughter of the defendant and the wife of the plaintiff, as per authorisation given by her; on 9-2-1973 the defendant and the plaintiff's wife Rajakumari had entered into an agreement for sale by the defendant to the plaintiff and bis wife and children of the residential house and compound in Sarada Vihar in Chittoor, Cochin, exclusively belonging to the defendant, where the plaintiff and his wife had been residing. The agreement was for sale for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-; a sum of Rs.10,00