{"id":200921,"date":"1971-01-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1971-01-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971"},"modified":"2017-04-03T00:35:30","modified_gmt":"2017-04-02T19:05:30","slug":"ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971","title":{"rendered":"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2551, \t\t 1971 SCR (3) 573<\/div>\n
Author: A Ray<\/div>\n
Bench: Ray, A.N.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAM JANKI DEVI & ANR.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S.  JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/01\/1971\n\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nBENCH:\nRAY, A.N.\nMITTER, G.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1971 AIR 2551\t\t  1971 SCR  (3) 573\n\n\nACT:\nDeposit and Loan-Difference between-Tests-Demand for part of\nloan whether starts limitation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n Two groups known as the Singhania group and the Gupta\tGroup\n were  partners\t in  M\/s.  India Supplies.   Both  were\t also\n interested  in-the business of Lakshmi Ratan  Cotton  Mills.\n In the present litigation the Gupta group was represented by\n the  appellants and the Singhania group by  the  respondent.\n In  the  year\t1942  Lakshmi Rattan  Cotton  Mills  was  the\n creditor of M\/s.  India Supplies for the approximate sum  of\n Rs.  4,00,000.\t Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills was a  debtor  to\n the  respondent  for  the approximate sum  of\tRs.  400,000.\n Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills demanded the sum of Rs.  4,00,000\n from India Supplies.  India Supplies could not repay Lakshmi\n Ratan Cotton Mills.  Thereafter India Supplies proposed that\n the  respondent  should deposit a sum of Rs.  4,00,000\t with\n India\tSupplies  to wipe out the indebtedness of  the\tIndia\n Supplies  to  Lakshmi Ratan Cotton  Mills.   The  respondent\n accepted  the 'said proposal and thereafter a\tletter\tdated\n 29,  September\t 1942 was written by the head  of  the\tGupta\n group\ton  behalf  of\tIndia  Supplies\t to  the   respondent\n recording  the agreement that \"a sum of Rs. 4,00,000  should\n be debited to India Supplies as deposit at the usual rate of\n interest as agreed upon.\" The respondent was to place to the\n credit\t of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills a sum of Rs.  4,00,000\n in  its  account  with\t the  respondent  thus\treducing  the\n indebtedness of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills from Rs. 9,00,000\n to Rs. 5,00,000.  Disputes and differences arose between the\n two  groups  thereafter.  In 1944 there was  an  arbitration\n award.\t The Sing Hanias went out of both India Supplies  and\n Lakshmi  Ratan Cotton Mills, and the Gupta group carried  on\n both  the  businesses.\t The present suit was, filed  by  the\n respondent  in 1953.  The claim was based on  the  aforesaid\n deposit  of Rs. 4,00,000.  The suit though originally\tfiled\n in  the  court of the Civil Judge, Kanpur was tried  by  the\n Allahabad High Court in its original jurisdiction.  The suit\n was  decreed in favour of the respondent.  With  certificate\n appeal\t  was  filed  in  this\tCourt.\t The  questions\t  for\n consideration\twere  : (i) whether the money  was  deposited\n under an agreement and payable on demand so that  limitation\n would commence from the date of demand within three years of\n which\tit was filed, or whether it was a loan made  on\t 30th\n December 1942 in respect of which the suit was barred\tunder\n Art. 59 by limitation, the same not having been filed within\n three\tyears from the date of the loan; (ii)  whether\tthere\n was a demand for a part of the amount in 1943 and  therefore\n limitation would start from that date.\n HELD: (i) The amount was a deposit and not a loan.\n The case of a deposit is something more than a mere loan  of\n money.\t It will depend on the facts of each case whether the\n transaction  is clothed with the character of a  deposit  of\n money.\t The surrounding circumstances, the relationship  and\n character  of\tthe transaction and the manner in  which  the\n parties treated the transaction will throw light on the true\n form of the transaction. [577 H]\n 574\n V.E, A. Annamalai Chettiar & Anr. v. S. V. V. S. Veerappa\n Chettiar,  A.I.R.<\/a> 1956 S.C. 12 and Nawab Major Sir  Mohammad\n Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh & Ors., 63 I.A. 279, referred to.\n Some of the partners of the appellant and the respondent  in\n the year 1942 were common.  It would be more explicable  and\n natural  course  of  events that monies  would\t be  kept  in\n deposit  with the appellant in order to enable them to\t have\n financial   accommodation   without   immediate   worry   of\n repayment.  The mere fact that money in specie was not\t paid\n would\tnot  be\t destructive of the  case  of  deposit.\t  The\n respondent   acted  as\t bankers.   The\t way  in  which\t  the\n respondent  made entries in the pass-book of  the  appellant\n was  consistent  with\tthe roznamcha,\tkhata  and  nakalbahi\n books.\t  It was not a case of the respondent giving loan  to\n the appellant for the obvious reason that the history of the\n transaction  between the appellant and Lakshmi Cotton\tMills\n showed\t that  the appellant had to be put on  a  footing  of\n financial  stability by giving the appellant the use of  the\n sum  of  Rs. 4,00,000 for a long time.\t The absence  of  any\n negotiable  instrument\t was  significant.   A\thundi  or   a\n promissory note would have been consistent with the case  of\n a   loan.    The  relationship\t between  the\tparties\t  the\n surrounding  circumstances at the time of  the\t transaction,\n the   pecuniary   position  of\t the   appellant   were\t  all\n overwhelming features to corroborate the oral as well as the\n documentary  evidence of the respondent that the amount  was\n deposited with the appellant. [580 E-H]\n The  arbitration  award in the dispute between\t the  parties\n gave  directions  on  the basis  that\tthere  were  advances\n between the parties which were in the nature of deposit  and\n were not covered by the award., [581 A-B]\n In  contemporarious documents the appellant never said\t that\n it was a case of advancing loan.  The non-production of  the\n appellant's  accounts coupled with the\t appellant's  staying\n away from the witness box indicated the inherent infirmities\n of the appellant's case. [581 D]\n (ii)There  is a consensus among the High Courts that  there\n must  be an unqualified demand for the whole sum before  the\n limitation  can  start in case of demand for return  of  the\n amount deposited.  Further, a demand in the year 1943 for  a\n part of the amount would not be effective because there were\n common\t  partners  in\tthe  firms  of\trespondent  and\t  the\n appellant. 1581 E-G]\n Jogendranath  Chakerbutty  v. Dinkar Ram, A.I.R.  1921\t Cal.\n 644, Motigauri v. Naranji, A.I.R. 1927 Bom. 362 and  Subbaih\n Chetty & Ors.\n The appeal must accordingly be dismissed.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2151 of 1966.
\n Appeal\t from the judgment and order dated August 3, 1965  of
\n the Allahabad High Court in Original Suit No. I of 1964.
\n S.   V. Gupte and J., P. Gopal, for the appellants.
\n A.   K. Sen, Rameshwar Nath and Swaranjit Sodhi, for the
\n respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 575<\/span><\/p>\n
 The Judgment of   Court was delivered by
\n Ray,  J.-This is an appeal by certificate from the  judgment
\n and  decree  dated  3\tAugust, 1965 of\t the  High  Court  of
\n Allahabad decreeing the, respondents suit for the sum of Rs.
\n 4,11,367.92.\n<\/p>\n
  The  respondent filed the suit on 16 May, 1953 against  the
\n appellant for the recovery of Rs. 4,11,367.92 with  interest
\n and costs.\n<\/p>\n
 The respondent’s case in short was that the respondent on 30
\n September,  1942  deposited a sum of Rs. 4,00,000  with  M\/s
\n India\tSupplies whereof the appellants were the partners  on
\n the condition that interest would be payable @ 7\/9 per\t cent
\n per  month  and  that the respondent would  be\t entitled  to
\n withdraw the deposit on demand.\n<\/p>\n
 The  suit was filed in the court of the First\tCivil  Judge,
\n Kanpur.  The evidence was concluded before the Civil  Judge,
\n Kanpur.   Thereafter by an order dated 12 May, 1964  of  the
\n High Court at Allahabad the suit was transferred to the High
\n Court\tin its original ,civil jurisdiction.  The High\tCourt
\n heard\tthe  suit and on 3 August, 1965 decreed the  suit  in
\n favour of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 At  the trial the issues were first whether  the  respondent
\n deposit  ed the sum of Rs. 4,00,000 with the  appellant  and
\n secondly whether the suit was barred by time.
\n The entire controversy in the suit is whether it was a\t case
\n where money was deposited under an agreement and that it was
\n payable  on demand or whether it was a case of\t an  ordinary
\n loan of Rs. 4,00.000. The respondent contended that  Article
\n 60  of\t the  Indian Limitation Act, 1908  was\tthe  relevant
\n Article  because if was a case of money deposited  under  an
\n agreement  that it was payable on demand and  therefore  the
\n limitation  would commence from the date of demand  and  the
\n suit  was  filed within three years from  the\tdemand.\t  The
\n rival contention of the appellant was that it was money lent
\n under\tan  agreement that it was payable on demand  and  the
\n loan  was made on 30 December, 1942 and therefore  the\t suit
\n not  having been filed within 3 years from the date  of  the
\n loan under Article 59 was barred by limitation.
\n In  the year 1942 Kailashpat Singhania and Pushpa Devi\t wife
\n of  Lakshmipat\t Singhania were partners  of  India  Supplies
\n along with the defendants.  Defendant Ram Janki Devi is  the
\n wife  of  Ram Ratan Gupta and the other  defendant  Lal  Ram
\n Gopal\tGupta  is a brother of Ram Ratan  Gupta\t and  married
\n Padampat Singhania’s sister’s daughter.  The Singhania group
\n and the Gupta
\n 576<\/span>
\n group\twere the partners of India Supplies.   The  Singhania
\n and  the  Gupta  groups were also  both  interested  in  the
\n business  of  Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills,  The\t evidence  on
\n behalf of the respondent is that Lakshmi Rattan Cotton Mills
\n a  limited Company acted as financiers and bankers of\tIndia
\n Supplies.  In the year 1942, Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills  was
\n the creditor of M\/s.  India Supplies for the approximate sum
\n of Rs. 4,00,000.  Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills was a debtor to
\n the  respondent  for the approximate sum  of  Rs.  4,00,000.
\n Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills demanded the sum of Rs.  4,00,000
\n from India Supplies.  India Supplies could not repay Lakshmi
\n Ratan Cotton Mills.  Thereafter India Supplies proposed that
\n the  respondent  should deposit a sum of Rs.  4,00,000\t with
\n India\tSupplies  to  wipe  out\t the  indebtedness  of\tIndia
\n Supplies  to  Lakshmi Ratan Cotton  Mills.   The  respondent
\n accepted the said proposal and thereafter a letter dated  29
\n September,  1942 was written by Ram Ratan Gupta head of  the
\n Gupta\tgroup on behalf of India Supplies to  the  respondent
\n recording  the agreement that “a sum of Rs. 4,00,000  should
\n be debited to India Supplies as deposit at the usual rate of
\n interest  as agreed upon”.  The respondent was to  place  to
\n the  credit  of  Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills  a\t sum  of  Rs.
\n 4,00,000  in its account with the respondent  thus  reducing
\n the  indebtedness  of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton  Mills  from  Rs.
\n 9,00,000  to Rs. 5,00,000.  Disputes and  differences\tarose
\n between  the  two groups thereafter.  In 1944 there  was  an
\n arbitration  award.  The Singhanias went out of  both\tIndia
\n Supplies and Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills and the Gupta groups
\n carried on both the businesses.\n<\/p>\n
 One  of the books of account of the respondent, namely,  the
\n roznamcha  (daily book) under the entry 30  September,\t 1942
\n shows that according to the letter of India Supplies the sum
\n of Rs. 4,00,000 was deposited in the name of India Supplies.
\n The  other  books  of account of  the\tplaintiff  are\tkhata
\n (ledger)  and\tnakalbahi  (journal).\tThe  respondent\t also
\n relied on the pass book entry being Ex-A-4 which shows\t that
\n a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was withdrawn on 30 September, 1942 by
\n the appellant from the respondent as a banker and along with
\n the  interest from time to time the amount of\tRs.  4,00,000
\n stood\twith  the  appellant in\t the  deposit  account.\t  The
\n balance-sheet\tof  the appellant as on 30 June,  1943\tbeing
\n Ex.A-4 showed that a sum of Rs. 4,00,000 was unsecured\t loan
\n from the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 Counsel on behalf of the appellant contended that the use of
\n the  word  ‘deposit  by  itself  occurring  either  in\t  the
\n roznamcha or in the letter dated 29 September, 1942  written
\n by  Ram Ratan Gupta would not be decisive of  the  question
\n whether it was a case of deposit of the sum of Rs.- 4,00,000
\n by the respondent with the appellant under an agreement that
\n the same would be paid on
\n 577<\/span>
\n demand.   At  one  stage  in the  proceedings\tthere  was  a
\n controversy as ‘to whether Rain Ratan Gupta had authority to
\n bind  the appellant by the letter dated 29 September,\t1942.
\n There\tis  evidence that Ram Ratan Gupta  looked  after  the
\n business  of the appellant and acted on behalf of the\tfirm
\n of   the  appellant  in  ordinary  mercantile\t transaction.
\n Counsel  for the appellant in all fairness did not  question
\n the  authority\t of Ram Ratan Gupta to bind the firm  of  the
\n appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 It was said by counsel for the appellant that there were six
\n principal  reasons  to indicate that, it was a\t case  of  an
\n ordinary  loan of Rs. 4,00,000 and not- an instance  of  the
\n sum  of Rs. 4,00,000 being deposited by the respondent\t with
\n the appellant under an agreement that the same would be paid
\n on demand.  The primary and pre-eminent point emphasized  by
\n the appellant was the background of the transaction  between
\n M\/s India Supplies on the one hand and Lakshmi Ratan  Cotton
\n Mills\ton the other, that moneys were lent and\t advanced  by
\n Lakshmi  Ratan Cotton Mills to India Supplies from  time  to
\n time  and  all that happened was that in  place  of  Lakshmi
\n Ratan Cotton Mills the respondent became the creditor of the
\n firm  of the appellants.  There was just a  substitution  of
\n the  creditor\tdebitor\t relationship  by  substituting\t  the
\n respondent  in\t place of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills  as  the
\n creditor.   Secondly, it was said that there was  never  any
\n payment of money in cash and adjustment entries were made in
\n the books of the respondent.  Thirdly, monies were not given
\n nationally  for  the convenience of the  respondent  banker.
\n Fourthly, monies were required by the appellant for his  own
\n business because Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills refused to\t help
\n the  appellant\t any more.  Fifthly, Ex.  A-4 the  pass\t book
\n would show that it was a case of advance of Rs. 4,00,000  by
\n the respondent to the appellant, and finally, the appellants
\n were  not bankers and therefore it was improbable  that  the
\n respondents who were bankers would deposit with the  traders
\n the sum of Rs. 4,00,000.\n<\/p>\n
 Counsel  for  the appellant relied on the decision  of\t this
\n Court\tin V. E. A. Annamalai Chettiar & Anr. v. S. V. V.  S.
\n Veerappa Chettiar<\/a>(1) in support of the proposition that  the
\n answer\t to  the  question as to whether it  was  a  loan  or
\n deposit would not depend merely on the terms of the document
\n but  had to be judged from the intention of the parties  and
\n the  circumstances  of\t the case.  That  is  manifestly  the
\n correct approach.\n<\/p>\n
 The case of a deposit is something more than a mere loan  of
\n money.\t It will depend on the facts of each case whether the
\n transaction  is clothed with the character of a  deposit  of
\n money.\t The surrounding circumstances, the relationship  and
\n character of the
\n (1) A.I.R. 1956. S.C. 12.\n<\/p>\n
 578<\/span><\/p>\n
 transaction  and  the manner in which\tparties\t treated  the
\n transaction  will  throw  light  on the  true\tform  of  the
\n transaction.\n<\/p>\n
 The  Judicial\tCommittee in Nawab Major Sir  Mohammad\tAkbar
\n Khan v. Attar Singh & Ors. (1) spoke of the distinction bet-
\n ween the deposit and loan to be that the two terms were  not
\n mutually  exclusive but that a deposit not for a fixed\t term
\n did  not  seem\t to impose an  immediate  obligation  on  the
\n depositee to seek out the depositor and repay him.
\n Though,documents  by  themselves are not conclusive  of  the
\n question  they\t have  the  evidentiary\t value\tand  if\t they
\n corroborate   the  oral  evidence  the\t importance  of\t  the
\n documents is magnified.  The letter Ex.  A-5 bears the\t date
\n 29  September, 1942 and is contemporaneous with  the  entire
\n transaction  between the appellant and the respondent.\t  The
\n letter was as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
 “Messrs.  Juggilal Kamlapat Kothl, Cawnpore.
\n Dear Sirs,
\n As per my talk with Sir Padampat I shall thank you to credit
\n a sum of S. 4 lacs(Rupees four lacs only   to the  account
\n of Messrs Lakshmi ratan Cotton Mills Co.     Ltd., and debit
\n       the  same to the account of India Supplies  as
\n       deposit\tat  the\t usual rate  of\t interest  as
\n       agreed upon by the partners of the said firm.
\n Thanking you,
\n\t\t       Yours faithfully,
\n\t\t       Sd\/- R. Ratan Gupta”.\n<\/p>\n
 The intrinsic evidence in the letter is that the sum of  Rs.
\n 4,00,000  was\tdebited to India Supplies  as  deposit.\t  The
\n words\t“debited as deposit”, were criticised by counsel  for
\n the appellant to be meaningless.  Too much precision  cannot
\n always\t be expected in regard to use of foreign language  by
\n merchants  and\t traders  in  their  short  memorandum.\t  The
\n character  of\tdeposit\t is  an\t inherent.impression  in  the
\n writing.   The\t rozmancha  refers  to\tthe  letter  and   is
\n therefore corroborative of the letter and the terms thereof.
\n The  letter further shows that the terms were agreed  to  by
\n the  partners\tof the firm, namely, the  partners  of\tIndia
\n Supplies  and of ale respondent.  The\trespondent’s  partner
\n Padampat Singhania gave oral evidence and substantiated  the
\n terms\tof  the letter and the respondent’s  case.   Padampat
\n Singhania  was\t the person on behalf of the  respondent  who
\n carried on the negotiations.  His evidence was therefore im-
\n portant.  The appellants did not examine themselves and  did
\n not
\n (1)  63 I.A. 279.\n<\/p>\n
 579<\/span><\/p>\n
 give  any  evidence challenging the oral  testimony  of  the
\n respondent  s partner.\t On the contrary, the correctness  of
\n the, letter EX.  A-5 was accepted by the appellants’ witness
\n Ram Ratan Gupta the author of the letter.\n<\/p>\n
 The  roznamcha\t entry. was proved by Gopi Kishan  Saraugi  a
\n munim of the plaintiff.  The roznalucha entry was as follows
\n “4,00,000  India  Supply Ke nam Asoj Badi  Chhat  :  30-9-42
\n Lakshmiratan Cotton Mill Ki Chithi se apke nam mada  deposit
\n karaya panna 2486”.\n<\/p>\n
 His evidence was that the books were systematically kept  on
\n ‘mahaj\t ani”  system in connection with the  business.\t  The
\n witness  proved the Khata, the raznamcha and  the  nakalbahi
\n entries.   In cross-examination  of Gopi Kishan  Saraugi  it
\n was  suggested that the entry under the date  30  September,
\n 1942 in the roznamcha was not written at the same time.  The
\n suggestion  was  that there was interpolation of  the\twords
\n “deposit   karaya”  in\t the  roznamcha\t entry.\t  In   cross-
\n examination of Padampat Singhania questions were asked about
\n the   rokar,  khata,  nakal  bahi  and\t roznamcha   entries.
\n Padampat  Singhania said that the entry of Rs. 4,00,000  was
\n not recorded in the daily cash book but was recorded in  the
\n roznanicha.  He also said that credit and debit entries were
\n made  in  the roznamcha, Padampat Singhania  said  that  the
\n entries were made by Gopi Kishan Jaipuria who was in a dying
\n condition at the time the witness gave evidence.
\n It  was suggested to Padampat Singhania that the words\t “de-
\n posit karaya” in the roznamcha entry were not written at the
\n same  sitting.\t Padampat Singhania denied that, Counsel  for
\n the  appellant contended that in the absence of Gopi  Kishan
\n Jaipuria  the\taccount\t books\twere  not  proved.   This  is
\n unacceptable for two reasons.\tFirst, the account books were
\n shown\t in  cross-examination\tof  Padampat  Singhania\t  and
\n question  were\t asked on the same.  It is not\topen  to  the
\n appellant to complain of lack of proof of account books when
\n the documents are shown to the witness in cross-examination.
\n Secondly,  both Padampat Singhania and Gopi  Kishan  Saraugi
\n spoke\tof  the proper maintenance and keeping\tof  books  of
\n account and that it was not possible to arrange the presence
\n of  the writer of the entry.  Suggestion of tampering\tis  a
\n serious one.  The original entries were called for from  the
\n High Court.  We had occasion to look into the originals.  We
\n are in agreement with the High Court that the suggestion  of
\n fabrication  is  utterly unmeritious.\t The  words  ‘deposit
\n karaya’ appear without any doubt to have been written at the
\n same  time  as the rest of the writing.  It is\t in  evidence
\n that the reference to the page of the panna under that entry
\n was written later inasmuch as the page
\n 580<\/span>
\n of  the panna was put on when the panna was put on when  the
\n panna book was written.\n<\/p>\n
 The  most  important documentary evidence of  the  appellant
\n namely, their book of account was not produced.  These books
\n of  the  appellant  would have shown how  they\t treated  the
\n transaction,  namely,\twhether it was a case of  deposit  or
\n loan.\tThe irresistible inference from the non-production of
\n books\tof  the appellant would arise that  they  would\t have
\n supported the respondents case and that is why they were not
\n produced.  The appellant’s contention that the background of
\n the  transaction  was\tmercantile  loan,  would  be  more  a
\n conjecture  than  a  conclusion  to  be  arrived  at.\t  The
\n financial  transactions between the respondent\t and  Lakshmi
\n Ratan Cotton Mills were running accounts.  It would, be more
\n consistent to hold that,by allowing India Supplies a deposit
\n of  Rs.  4,00,000 India Supplies would be  relieved  of  the
\n situation   of\t repaying  the\tmoney  immediately.   It   is
\n precisely.  because of the then inability of India  Supplies
\n to  repay  Lakshmi  Ratan  Cotton  Mills  that\t the  parties
\n resorted  to the mode of having the use of the money by  way
\n of deposit.  The transaction was between the appellant,  the
\n respondent  and Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills.  All figured  in
\n the transaction.  A more loan of Rs. 4,00,000 would not have
\n sufficed the needs of the appellant who were then unable  to
\n pay the dues of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills.
\n Some of the partners of the appellant and the respondent  in
\n the year 1942 were common.  It would be more explicable  and
\n natural  course  of  events that monies  would\t be  kept  in
\n deposit  with the appellant in order to enable them to\t have
\n financial   accommodation   without   immediate   worry   of
\n repayment.  The mere fact that money in specie was not\t paid
\n would\tnot be destructive of deposit.\tThe respondent\tacted
\n as  bankers.  The, way in which the respondent made  entries
\n in  the pass book of the appellant is consistent with\ttheir
\n roznamcha, khata and nakal bahi books.\t It was not a case of
\n the respondent giving loan to the appellant for the  obvious
\n reason\t that  the history of the  transactions\t between  the
\n appellant  and Lakshmi Rantan Cotton Mills show.%  that  the
\n appellant had to be put on a footing of financial  stability
\n by giving the appellant the use of the sum.’ of Rs. 4,00,000
\n for  a long time.  The absence of any negotiable  instrument
\n is  significant.   A hundi or a promissory note  would\t have
\n been  consistent with the case of a loan.  The\t relationship
\n between  the parties; the surrounding circumstances  at  the
\n time  of  the\ttransaction, the pecuniary  position  of  the
\n appellant  are all overwhelming features to corroborats  the
\n oral  as well as the documentary evidence of the  respondent
\n that the amount was deposited with the appellant.
\n The  award dated 18 January, 1944 has also a tale  to\ttell.
\n There\twere  disputes between the partners  of\t the  various
\n businesses in
\n 581<\/span>
\n which the Singhania and Gupta groups were interested.\tThese
\n disputes  were before the arbitrators.\t One of the terms  in
\n the  award  was that the award in respect of  Lakshmi\tRatan
\n Cotton\t Mills and India Supplies “do not cover the  advances
\n which either party or their separate firms may have made  to
\n all  or any of them or their moneys which may be in  deposit
\n with them and they shall be payable and paid in their\tusual
\n course”.  This direction, in the award shows that there were
\n advances  which were in the nature of deposit and  were  not
\n covered  by  the award.  The award  would  have  evidentiary
\n value\tto show as to how the parties treated and  understood
\n their financial dealings.\n<\/p>\n
 It is also significant that when the respondent demanded the
\n money by a letter dated 27 April 1953 (Ex. 7) the  appellant
\n in  their reply dated 5\/6 May, 1953 (Ex. 6)  totally  denied
\n the claim.  The respondent set out all the facts of  deposit
\n of the money with advancing loan.  The non-production of the
\n appellant’s  accounts\tcoupled with the  appellants  staying
\n away from the witness box indicates the inherent infirmities
\n in the appellant’s case.\n<\/p>\n
 Counsel for the appellant contended that there was a  demand
\n for  a part of the amount in the year 1943 because  Padampat
\n Singhania  said  that\tthere  was demand  in  the  month  of
\n October, 1943 and therefore limitation would start from that
\n date.\t The view of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras High  Courts
\n is  that there must be an unqualified demand for  the\twhole
\n sum  before  the limitation can star in case of  demand  for
\n return\t  of   the  amount   deposited.\t  (See\t Jogendranath
\n Chokerbutty  v. Dinkar(1) Ram Motigaur v. Naranji ( 2 )  and
\n Subbaih  Chetty & Ors. v. Visalakshgi Achi) ( 3 ) . That  is
\n the correct position in law.  Counsel for the appellant  did
\n not  contend  to the contrary in view of  the\tconsensus  of
\n opinion of the different High Courts.\tIt is also  important
\n to bear in mind that a demand in the year 1943 for a part of
\n the amount would not be effective because there were  common
\n partners in the firms of the respondent and the appellant.
\n For these reasons we are of opinion that the High Court  was
\n correct  in decreeing the suit.  The appeal therefore\tfails
\n and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
 G.  C.\t\t\t\t\t\t       Appeal\n dismissed.\n (1)  A.I.R. 1921 Cal. 644\n (2)  A.I.R. 1927 Bom. 362\n (3)  A.I.R. 1932 Mad. 685\n 582<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 Equivalent citations: 1971 AIR 2551, 1971 SCR (3) 573 Author: A Ray Bench: Ray, A.N. PETITIONER: RAM JANKI DEVI & ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: M\/S. JUGGILAL KAMLAPAT DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/01\/1971 BENCH: RAY, A.N. BENCH: RAY, A.N. MITTER, G.K. CITATION: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-200921","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRam Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1971-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-02T19:05:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\\\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971\",\"datePublished\":\"1971-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-02T19:05:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\"},\"wordCount\":3099,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\",\"name\":\"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\\\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1971-01-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-02T19:05:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\\\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1971-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-02T19:05:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971","datePublished":"1971-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-02T19:05:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971"},"wordCount":3099,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971","name":"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1971-01-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-02T19:05:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ram-janki-devi-anr-vs-ms-juggilal-kamlapat-on-28-january-1971#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ram Janki Devi & Anr vs M\/S. Juggilal Kamlapat on 28 January, 1971"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200921","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=200921"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200921\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200921"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200921"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200921"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}