These appeals raise a common question of limitation ,

(2) The respondents in the appeals deposited with the appellant Bank certain sums of money for a fixed period of one year. As the Bank did not repay the amounts on demand made by the respondents, suits out of which these appeals arise, were instituted by the respondents against the appellant Bank. The Bank raised the same point of limitation in all the suits which may briefly be set out as follows;

(3) The amounts became payable by the Bank on the dates on which the period of the fixed deposits expired. The period of limitation for the suits has, therefore, to he computed from those dates. As the suits were instituted beyond a period of six years from those dates, the suits are clearly barred by limitation.

(4) The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the starting point of limitation is the date on which demand was made on the Bank for repayment of the amount deposited and as the suits were brought within six years of the date of demand the suits are well within time.

(5) The controversy thus turns upon what is the correct starting point of limitation in these cases. If time is to run only from the date of demand, it is conceded that the suits are within time. But if limitation started from the date when the period fixed for the deposits expired, it is common ground that the suits are out of time.

(6) The courts below found in favour of the respondents and decreed the suits. The appellant Bank has therefore come up in appeal to this court.

(7) The relation between the parties is admittedly one of Banker and customer and the transaction is one of deposit of money with a banker by a customer. A deposit with a banker is not a loan, pure and simple. Unlike an ordinary debtor, a banker has not to find out his creditor for re-payment of the debt. Nor is a depositor with a Bank entitled to demand re-payment at any time and at any place as an ordinary creditor is entitled to. Further more, whereas in the case of a loan simpliciter repayable on demand the starting point of limitation is the date when the loan is paid, in the case of a deposit with a Bank, time will begin to run only when a demand is made by the depositor for repayment of the amount deposited. This distinction has to be kept in mind in applying Arts. 89 and 90 of the State Limitation Act which correspond to Arts. 59 and 60 of the Indian Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908).

In the case of money lent under an agreement that it shall be repayable on demand, there is a present debt, and the debt which constitutes the cause of action arises instantly on the loan. The words "on demand" when used in connection with an ordinary loan, do not really mean that the amount will become payable only when its re-payment is demanded. On the other hand, the same words when used in connection with a deposit really mean what they say, that is, the deposit is to be paid only when a demand for it is made. In other words, the words "on demand" when employed in connection with an ordinary debt, have to be understood in the technical sense in which they are used in English law with reference to a promise to pay a debt.

But in the case of a deposit with a Banker actual demand for re-payment is an implied term of the contract between the Banker and the customer. This position has been authoritatively pointed out in Joachimson v. Swiss Bank Corporation, (1921) 3 KB 110. The question there was whether the customer of a bank can sue the banker for the balance standing to the credit of his current account without making a previous demand on the banker for payment. That was a concurrent decision of three Judges of the Court of Appeal. Banks L. J. pointed out that it could not be an ordinary relation of a creditor and Hebtor and that there must be quite a good number of super-added obligations governing the relation between a banker and a customer. It was pointed out that a demand for payment by the customer was a condition prece