JUDGMENT This is defendant's second appeal under section 100 CPC against the judgment of affirmance. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,800/-. Second Additional Civil Judge, Class II, Damoh by judgment and decree dated 13.11.1987 passed in Civil Suit No. 13B/87 decreed the suit. Defendant aggrieved by the same preferred appeal and the District Judge, Damoh by judgment and decree dated 17.11.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 1B/88 dismissed the appeal. Defendant being aggrieved by the same has preferred this appeal. By order dated 3.8.1989 appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether the suit, as framed and filed was barred by' limitation ? According to the plaintiff on 3.10.1983 when defendant No. 1 Roop Chand and his son Vinod Kumar came to the village Mudari, plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on the condition that when she shall demand it shall be refunded. According to the plaintiff similarly on 15.6.1983 and in August 1983 defendant No. 1 and his son Vinod Kumar came to the village, plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 1,800/- respectively on the condition that when demand shall be made, amount shall be paid by the defendant. According to the plaintiff on 29.9.1984 she demanded refund of the amount, but the same was not paid. Accordingly plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,800/-. It is relevant here to state that plaintiff in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 has stated about deposit of money by her to the defendant and his son as also receipt granted by the defendant and his son. However, in the written statement the defendant has simply denied the assertion made in those paragraphs. It is relevant here to state that the defendant has not raised issue of limitation and accordingly the trial Court did not go into this question at all. However, before the lower appellate Court, defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation, but his contention was repelled by the lower appellate Court. Shri R.K. Samaiya appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that transaction in question is a loan transaction and as such limitation will start to run from the date the loan is advanced. However, before the lower appellate Court, defendant contended that the suit is barred by limitation, but his contention was repelled by the lower appellate Court. Shri R.K. Samaiya appears on behalf of the appellant and submits that transaction in question is a loan transaction and as such limitation will start to run from the date the loan is advanced. Lower appellate Court on consideration of the materials placed before it found that it is a deposit and hence the period of limitation shall start to run from the date when the demand is made. Shri Samaiya submits that the lower appellate Court is not correct in holding that it is a deposit and not the loan. In this connection he draws my attention to the receipt (Ex. P-2) wherein it has been stated that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- has been taken as loan. Other two receipts (Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-3) simply state about the receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,800/- and Rs. 1,000/- respectively. Shri Samaiya on the basis of the averments in the receipt (Ex. P-1) wants me to infer that the whole transaction is a loan transaction and, therefore, limitation will start from the date when the loan was advanced. In the plaint the plaintiff has clearly stated that the money was deposited with the defendant and his son with stipulation that on her demand defendant shall pay the same. Excepting the general denial, defendant has nowhere stated that it is not a deposit but loan. In such circumstances lower appellate Court is right in holding that it is a deposit. I do not find any substance in the contention of Shri Samaiya that the transaction in question is loan. Once it is held so, limitation will start to run from the date when the demand is made. According to the plaintiff the demand was made on 29.9.1984 and the suit was filed on 21.8.1986 i.e. within three years from the date when the demand was made. In my opinion the lower appellate Court has rightly held that in the facts of the present case Article 22 of the Limitation Act will apply which prescribes the period of limitation of three years from the date of demand is made. Substantial question of law framed is, thus, answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. In my opinion the lower appellate Court has rightly held that in the facts of the present case Article 22 of the Limitation Act will apply which prescribes the period of limitation of three years from the date of demand is made. Substantial question of law framed is, thus, answered against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.