1. We agree with the learned Subordinate Judge that the money in question in this suit was deposited with the defendants' firm on account of the plaintiff. According to Exhibit A, the terms upon which money was deposited were 'two months thavanai interest.'' This means that interest should be calculated at thavanai rates with two-monthly rests. It is not clear upon the evidence in the present case whether according to the custom of Nattukottai Chetties money deposited on those terms is repayable at once upon demand or whether it is repayable only at the expiration of the current thavanai period when the demand is made. Whichever it be, we agree with the Subordinate Judge that the present suit is not barred. It is perfectly clear that this money may be said to have been deposited with the Nattukottai Chetties within the meaning of Article 60 of the Limitation Act, 1908, if it is payable on demand. Nattukottai Chetties are really the Indian bankers of this part of the country, so that Article 60 applies if the money is payable on demand.
2. Now, if the real meaning of this term 'two months thavanai interest' is that the sum is not payable until after the expiration of the next thavanai period, we have to consider what Article is applicable. The first of the Articles dealing with money lent is Article 57 'for money payable for money lent', and there are various subsequent Articles giving starting points in the case of loans of different characters. It is quite clear that Article 57 cannot apply to this case because the starting point is when the loan is made and yet ex hypothesi the money is not repayable until after the happening of a certain event, that is to say, until after a certain period after demand. That is enough to dispose of that Article.
3. If Article 60 is not applicable, we can fall back on Article 115 which provides that 'for compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied, not in writing registered and not herein specially provided for', limitation begins to run from the time when the contract is broken. Now, when money deposited on these terms is not repaid at the expiry of the current thavanai period the contract is broken and, therefore, limitation would begin to run under this Article. This is not at all a new view. It is the view which was taken by me sitting on the original side in a case, Baldkrishnudu v. Narayansawmy Chetty 24 Ind. Cas. 852, and by the Appellate Court in Baldkrishnudu v. Narayanasawmy Chetty (1914) M. W. N. 264. We think, therefore, that the suit is not barred by limitation, and the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.