Case Note & Summary
The present second appeal arises from a judgment and decree dated 25.04.2000 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No. 269/1993. The appellate court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/defendant, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in Special Civil Suit No. 90/1976, which had decreed the claim of the appellants (legal representatives of the original plaintiff) for recovery of Rs. 50,000 with future interest at 6% per annum. The original plaintiff, Ballabhdas Thakurdas Rathi, had filed the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 50,000 against Madanmohan Balmukund Kakani. The facts reveal that on 22.10.1956, Balmukund, father of the defendant, deposited Rs. 51,000 with Ballabhdas, who executed a deposit receipt (chitti) in the name of Balmukund. On 19.01.1957, Ballabhdas paid Rs. 20,000 towards principal and Rs. 717.30 by way of interest and executed a fresh deposit receipt for the balance amount. The suit was filed in 1976. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court dismissed it on the ground of limitation, holding that Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied. The substantial question of law framed was whether the suit was within limitation and whether it was governed by Article 23 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The High Court, after analyzing the nature of the transaction as a deposit, held that Article 23 applies, which provides a three-year limitation period from the date of demand. Since the demand was made in 1976 and the suit was filed within three years, the suit was within limitation. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's decree.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Article 23 vs Article 113 - Deposit Receipt (Chitti) - Suit for recovery of money based on a deposit receipt executed on 22.10.1956 - The court held that the transaction is governed by Article 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period from the date of demand, and not Article 113 (residuary). Since the suit was filed within three years of the demand made in 1976, it was within limitation. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is within limitation and whether the suit transaction is governed by Article 23 or Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Amravati dated 25.04.2000 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 269/1993 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in Special Civil Suit No. 90/1976 dated 24.09.1993 is restored. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 23
- Article 113
- deposit receipt
- chitti
- limitation period
- suit for recovery of money
