S. RAJENDRA BABU, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's revision petition. She filed a suit on October 5, 1977, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,960 in the Court of the Munsiff which was later on transferred to the court of Small causes, Bangalore. The case of the petitioner is that defendants Nos. 4 and 13 to 19 and the late vardaraja Setty and Vishwanathaiah, who are the partners of the first defendant firm, obtained from her a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of fixed deposit on October 6, 1970, under receipt No. 252 payable on the expiry of two years with interest at 15 per cent. per annum. At the end of two years, the defendant persuaded the plaintiff to renew the said deposit for a further period of two more years, but at the end of the said period, the defendants did not pay the principal and the interest due, except a sum of Rs. 620 each paid by defendants Nos. 15 and 19 leaving a balance of Rs. 4,910. The plaintiff-petitioner brought the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,960 which included the notice charges of Rs. 50. ( 2 ) THE trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, formulated the following points for its consideration : (a) Does the plaintiff prove deposit of Rs. 3,000 with the first defendant on October 6, 1970, under fixed deposit receipt No. 252 ? (b) Is the suit in time ? (c) Does the plaintiff prove that the late Vishwanathiah was one of the partners of the first defendant-firm as on the date of the suit transaction ? (d) If so, are defendant No. 8 and the other heirs of Vishwanathiah liable for the suit claim, and if so, to what extent ? (e) Do defendants Nos. 16 and 17 prove that they were not the partners of defendant No. 1 as on the date of the suit transaction and had validly retired from defendant No. 1 prior to the suit transaction and that the same is not binding on them ? (f) Does defendant No. 16 prove that he is a debtor under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 ? (g) To what relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled ? (h) What decree or order ? (f) Does defendant No. 16 prove that he is a debtor under the Karnataka Debt Relief Act, 1976 ? (g) To what relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled ? (h) What decree or order ? ( 3 ) THE trial court held in favour of the plaintiff on all the points except on point No. (b ). On point No. (b), it held that although the petitioner contended that she had renewed the fixed deposit for a further period of two years from October 6, 1972 - the expiry date of the deposit initially made - to October 6, 1974, the petitioner having not proved or established the renewal for a further period to two years from October 6, 1972, to October 6, 1974, and the suit having been filed on October 5, 1977,. e. , five years after the deposit became payable, the same is barred by time and, therefore, dismissed the suit. ( 4 ) SHRI T. N. Raghupathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the trial court was not right in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation as the relevant article applicable to the case is article 22 of the Limitation Act. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, placed reliance on a decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Jammu and Kashmir Bank v. Nirmala Devi, AIR 1959 J and K 85, and contended that, in cases of the nature on hand, the starting point of limitation is the date of demand and not the date of maturity. ( 5 ) TO appreciate the contention of learned counsel, it is necessary to set out the provisions of article 22 of the Limitation Act. The same read thus : description of suit Period of Time from which limitation period begins to run for money deposited under Three years When the demand is made an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, including money of a customer in the hands of his banker so payable. ( 6 ) IN the present case, it is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 3,000 was deposited with the first respondent. Point No. (a) formulated by the court below as arising for its consideration, in this context, has been answered in favour of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN the present case, it is not disputed that a sum of Rs. 3,000 was deposited with the first respondent. Point No. (a) formulated by the court below as arising for its consideration, in this context, has been answered in favour of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that the first respondent borrowed the money from the petitioner and that the transaction is in the nature of a loan or a debt. If the money is deposited for a certain period it becomes payable only on the expiry of the period and no demand can be made during the period of deposit. On the expiry of the period of maturity, the amount in deposit does not cease to be one of deposit and become a loan or a debt. Therefore, the only question that is to be considered is whether the money deposited under an agreement shall become payable on demand. If money is paid into a bank or a financial institution as deposit, the same could be recovered against demand and, therefore, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court took the view in the decision referred to above that there is an implied term that it shall become payable on demand in cased of such deposit. In the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable to hold that in respect of the money paid to the first respondent, the period of limitation does not begin to run against the action to recover until demand is made for its return. There is no material on record to show that any intimation had been sent by the respondents intimating the maturity of the deposit and the intention of the petitioner to take back the money in deposit. Therefore, I am of the view that it is a clear case to which the provisions of article 22 of the Limitation Act are attracted. Accordingly, I must hold that the limitation does not begin to run until the demand is made. In the present case the demand had been made by issue of a legal notice. Therefore, the period of limitation begins to run from that date and hence the suit was well within time having regard to the fact the legal notice was issued on June 12, 1977. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has not assailed any other findings of the trial court. Therefore, the period of limitation begins to run from that date and hence the suit was well within time having regard to the fact the legal notice was issued on June 12, 1977. ( 7 ) THE petitioner has not assailed any other findings of the trial court. ( 8 ) INASMUCH as the trial court has answered point No. (a) in favour of the petitioner and I have answered point No. (b) in favour of the petitioner, in substitution of the finding of the trial court on that point, the suit is to be decreed subject, however, to the findings recorded by the trial court in relation to points Nos. (c) and (d ). ( 9 ) IN the circumstances, this petition is allowed and the decree dismissing the suit is set aside. The suit is decreed subject to the findings recorded under points Nos. (c) and (d) by the trial court.