1. Though some other questions were also argued before the lower court, the main question urged before us is whether the particular payment of money involved in this case was a loan attracting Art.59 of the Limitation Act of 1908 or a deposit attracting Art.60. The lower court held that the transaction was a loan; and in the appeal before us that finding is challenged by Mr. S. Narayanan Poti, the counsel of the appellant. Before the lower court the contention of the appellant (the plaintiff) was that, when his father advanced the sum (Rs. 16,000/-) to the first respondent (the first defendant) and took a promissory note in the appellant's name a trust was created in his favour and therefore, S.10 of the Limitation Act applied. As an alternative contention, it was also urged that, in case the lower court did not agree with this contention, it might be held that the transaction was a deposit, which attracted Art.60 of the Limitation Act. The first respondent contended, on the other hand, that the transaction was a loan and consequently, Art.59 of the Limitation Act was attracted. Before us the contention that the transaction created a trust is not urged, the counsel of t