Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover Rs. 800 and interest from the defendants, which were deposited with the defendants by their uncle Vasudeo. They alleged that Vasudeo used to deposit his savings in the defendants' shop from before 1907, for which a pass-book was given to Vasudeo in which the deposit amount and its interest were entered by him, as also the amounts withdrawn; that on October 27, 1916, a balance 'was struck showing Rs. 800 due from the defendants and that notice was given to repay on October 15, 1919. Vasudeo himself died in July 1918, and the plaintiffs claim under a will made by Vasudeo whereby this deposit amount was devised to them.
2. The principal defence raised by the defendants was that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation, That question would depend on whether Vasudeo's money was lent to the defendants or deposited with them.
3. The trial Court found that there was a deposit and gave a decree to the plaintiffs.
4. On appeal that decree was reversed. The Judge says:-
The deceased Vasudev was a goldsmith and handed sums of money which defendant No. 1 entered in a book Ex. 29. All sums received from Vaaudev and paid to him are entered in Ex. 29. This book is described by the learned trial Judge as being in the nature of a pass-book issued by Post Office Savings Bank. I have examined the book and find that it is not unlike a khata with regard to dealings with a trader and resembles a khata more than a pass-book. Interest is calculated and credited at the and of every commercial year as in the case of ordinary khatas.
5. The Judge considered it was a case of an ordinary khata, but a khata is generally in favour of the trader who charges interest for the amounts due by his customers. As this account was always in favour of the lender, it certainly might be considered that Vasudev was depositing his savings at a low rate of interest with the defendants as his bankers, and that Ex. 29 was really in the nature of a pass-book. Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act was amended by the Act of 1903, so as to make it clear that a customer's money in the hands of his banker and payable on demand was a deposit. It is not necessary to prove that the defendants were carrying on business only as bankers. A man might become a banker, or place himself in the position of a banker, with regard to a particular customer, and if the dealings between the lender and the borrower are such that the Court is satisfied that it could be said that the borrower is in the position of a banker to the lender, then the money so lent could be considered as a deposit.
6. Now, in this case, the evidence shows that Vasudev was landing money to the defendants at a low rate of interest and the defendants were lending out that money, and other money deposited in a similar fashion, at a higher rate. It was exactly in the nature of a banker's business, We, therefore, are of opinion that on the facts of this case the defendants were Vasudev's bankers and Vasudev deposited his moneys with the defendants, so that Article 60 of the Indian Limitation Act applies, and not Article 69. We, therefore, allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge with costs throughout.