JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Defendant in a suit for money is in appeal against the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur. 2. Defendant is Plaintiff's uncle. Both the parties are advocates ordinarily practising at Sambalpur. Plaintiff was a member of the State Legislative Assembly and for some time was member of the Council of Ministers. Plaintiff made a deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with the Defendant in terms of Ext. I dated 18-7-1961 and became entitled to interest at 12 per cent per annum. Defendant had made certain payments as indicated in the letters written between 965 and 1965. On 9-9-1965, Defendant promised to pay the whole amount by 18-9-1965. Plaintiff's dues stood at Rs. 1l,844.60 as per details in Schedule-B and on 24-3-1966, Defendant was asked to pay the amount as per Ext. D and when no payment was made, the suit was filed on 10-3-1969. 3. Defendant admitted the receipt of the deposit under Ext. I and pleaded that over and above the amount admitted to have been received by the Plaintiff, he had been paid Rs. 545/- in four instalments between 1961 and 1964. Defendant sent a letter on 9-9-1965 (Ext A) in answer to oral demand offering full payment. Limitation for the suit ran from 9-9-1965 and as such the suit is barred by limitation. Plaintiff had demanded full payment on 13-9-1965 and not on 24-3-1966 as pleaded. 4. The trial Court framed five issues. Both the parties led no oral evidence. On the basis of the documents admitted into evidence by consent of parties, the trial Court held that the Defendant had repaid a sum of Rs 545/- over and above the amounts admitted in the plaint, the claim was not barred by limitation and the balance amount was due. It accordingly decreed the suit for the remainder. This decree is assailed in appeal. 5. The finding of the trial Court in regard to Rs. 545/- is no more in dispute. The only question that requires adjudication is if the suit when filed was barred by limitation. It is conceded by Mr. Misra for the Appellant that in respect of the deposit loan evidenced by Ext. I, there was no limitation. 5. The finding of the trial Court in regard to Rs. 545/- is no more in dispute. The only question that requires adjudication is if the suit when filed was barred by limitation. It is conceded by Mr. Misra for the Appellant that in respect of the deposit loan evidenced by Ext. I, there was no limitation. He, however, contends that the money became due in terms of the demand dated 13-9-1965 (Ext, B) and the suit having not been filed within three years from that date was certainly out of time. 6. There is no dispute that the period of limitation available for a suit of this type is three years. When did the cause of action for the suit are then? In paragraph 6 of the plaint, it was averred: The transaction in suit being a deposit within the manning of the Limitation Act and the demand for the payment of money having been made by the Plaintiff, for the first time on 24-3-1966 as alleged above, the present suit is well within limitation, Alternately, if limitation starts running from 18-7-1961, the date of advancement of money as said above, then also, the present suit is within limitation because of the different payments by the Defendant, the necessary acknowledgment thereof in writing by the Defendant as alluded to above and the fresh promise to pay the whole amount of advancement as disclosed in this plaint In paragraph 9 and 10 of the written statement, Defendant pleaded: That the demand for full payment being made by the Plaintiff long before the Defendant's letter dated 9-9-1965, both verbally and through P.A,the limitation runs from before 9-9-1965. That the Plaintiff with a view to avoid the plaint being not entertainable - as time barred - has falsely stated that he has made repeated demands, the first of it having been made on 24-3-1966. Plaintiff has demanded payment of the full amount, in writing, on 13-9-1965 and that fact for the obvious reason has been intentionally suppressed. Article 70 of the Limitation Act of 1963, in our view, applies to the suit. That article provides: To recover movable Three years The date of refusal after property deposited demand. or pawned from a depositary or pawnee. This article corresponds to Article 145 of the Limitation Act of 1908. Article 70 of the Limitation Act of 1963, in our view, applies to the suit. That article provides: To recover movable Three years The date of refusal after property deposited demand. or pawned from a depositary or pawnee. This article corresponds to Article 145 of the Limitation Act of 1908. It is web settled that a suit by a depositary was governed by Article 145 of the old. Act: See Promoth Nath Mulliak v. Prodymno Kumar Mallick AIR 1921 Cal. 416, Kishtappa Chetty Vs. Lakshmi Ammal Ahilyamba Chatram and Devasthanam by its hereditary trustee. Ahilyamba Chatram and Devasthanam Vs. R. Subramania Ayyar, and Union of India per Secretary to Govt. Department of Supply, New Delhi Vs. Firm Vazir Sultan and Sons. Once it is held that deposit of money was covered by Article 145 of the old Act, there can be no scope to dispute that an action by a depositary to recover the deposit would not be within the ambit on that article. If old Article 145 applied the present Article 70 becomes applicable. Limitation starts not from the date of demand, but from the date of refusal following demand. On the plain reading of Ext. B, there can be no dispute that tbe Plaintiff made the demand on 13-9-1965 Defendant has not placed any document to show that at any point of time before 10-3-1966 (Ext. C) he had refused to comply with the demand in lull. The suit having been filed on 10-3-1969, is thus within three years from tbe date of refusal of a part of the claim and thus is within time. 7. The conduct of the Defendant who is Plaintiff's uncle and was the depositee of the money cannot indeed be appreciated. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs throughout. P.K. Mohanti, J. I agree. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed