ORDER : MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, J. Heard. 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26-08-2010 passed in Civil Suit No.5-A/2007 by the Ninth Additional District Judge, (FTC), Durg, by which, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit of the appellant-plaintiff. 2. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit against the Respondent-defendant for recovery of possession of mortgaged property, refund/recovery of loan amount advanced as also for decree of specific performance on the pleadings, inter alia, that on the request of the defendant, from time to time, in need of money, loan was advanced by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was advanced loan of Rs.2,10,000/- firstly on 07-10-1996 and mortgage in respect of the property in dispute was created vide mortgage deed executed on 07-10- 1996, Ex.P-1. Later on, the defendant again needed some more money as he was continuously facing loss in business, therefore, on his demand, further some of Rs.2,60,000/- was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant on 21-09-1999. Promissory Note Ex.P-2 was also executed on the same date by the defendant, acknowledging that he had taken loan of Rs.4,70,000/- and that he will repay the loan on demand and if he fails to repay, the plaintiff would be entitled to get the property in dispute sold in his favour by way of registered deed to be executed by the defendant. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff gave a registered notice, Ex.P-8, raising demand for payment of Rs.4,70,000/-, which, despite receipt of notice, was not repaid, therefore, the plaintiff had to file the suit. 3. The defendant denied the plaint allegations of having executed mortgage deed or even the promissory note. According to the defendant, he was in need of money, therefore, he had borrowed Rs.1,10,000/- from Tarachand, father of the plaintiff and not from the plaintiff. According to him, the said amount was repaid by him in installments. Further, pleading of the defendant was that some of the title documents of the defendants were deposited with Tarachand. Later on, when the defendant again needed some more money to carry on his business, he again contacted Tarachand and then Tarachand again imposed certain conditions. According to the defendant, Rs.1,00,000/-, though agreed to be paid him by Tarachand, but neither the amount was paid nor property documents were returned to him. Later on, when the defendant again needed some more money to carry on his business, he again contacted Tarachand and then Tarachand again imposed certain conditions. According to the defendant, Rs.1,00,000/-, though agreed to be paid him by Tarachand, but neither the amount was paid nor property documents were returned to him. Case of the defendant was that the signatures were obtained on two occasions on blank stamp paper and he never executed mortgage deed or promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed nine issues. Amongst other issues, the trial Court framed issue whether the mortgage was created by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as also the issue as to whether it was a loan transaction. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed nine issues. Amongst other issues, the trial Court framed issue whether the mortgage was created by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff as also the issue as to whether it was a loan transaction. The issues framed by the learned trial Court, are as under:- ØŒ oknÁ'u fu"d"kZ 1- D;k oknh us Áfroknh dks fnukad 07-10-96 dks 2]10]000@& :i;s m/kkj nsdj Áfroknh dh fookfnr laifRr dks vius ikl ca/kd j[kk Fkk\ oknh us Áfroknh dks fnukad 07-10-96 dks 2]10]000@& :i;s m/kkj fn;k FkkA Áfroknh dh fookfnr laifRr dks vius ikl ca/kd j[kuk lkfcr ugha gSA fodYi esa D;k oknh ds firk rkjkpan ls Áfroknh us 65]000@& ,oa 45]000@& :i;s ds nks psd ÁkIr dj rhu dksjs LVkai ij gLrk{kj fd;s Fks\ ugha 2- D;k oknh }kjk Áfroknh dks fnukad 21-09-99 dks 2]60]000@& :i;s m/kkj nsus ij Áfroknh us oknh ds i{k esa opu i= fu"ikfnr fd;k Fkk\ ugha oSdfYid okn Á'u D;k Áfroknh }kjk lu 1999 esa oknh ds firk rkjkpan ls 1]00]000@& :i;s ¼,d yk[k :i;k½ ekax fd, tkus ij mlus Áfroknh dks 1]00]000 :i;s ,d yk[k :i;k½ fn, fcuk Áfroknh ls 50 :i;s ds dksjs LVkEi ij 2]60]000@& :i;s dh ikorh ysdj vkSj gLrk{kj djkdj j[k fy;k Fkk\ gka 3- D;k Áfroknh us oknh ds firk rkjkpan dks o"kZ 1998 rd 1]50]000@& :i;s okil vnk fd;s\ ugha 4- D;k oknh mDr _.k jde 4]70]000@& :i;s ij C;kt ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSa\ ugha 5- D;k oknh ds i{k esa LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djus ds mfpr ,oa i;kZIr vk/kkj gS\ ugha 6- D;k okn dk mfpr ewY;kadu fd;k tkdj i;kZIr U;k;'kqYd pLik fd;k x;k gS\ gka 7- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;\ eqrkfcd dafMdk 26 ds vuqlkj nkok fujLrA vfrfjDr okn fo"k; 8- D;k oknh dk okn ifjlhek dky ds Hkhrj gS\ ugha 9- D;k oknh Áfroknh ls dlkjhMhg nqxZ fLFkr oknxzLr Hkou] tehu dk iath;u vius i{k esa djkdj] oknxzLr Hkou tehu dk Áfroknh ls dCtk ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ugha 4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself and other two witnesses to prove execution of mortgage deed, Ex.P-1 and promissory note Ex.P/2. The defendant examined himself as a sole defendant witness. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself and other two witnesses to prove execution of mortgage deed, Ex.P-1 and promissory note Ex.P/2. The defendant examined himself as a sole defendant witness. Learned trial Court, however, held that so-called mortgage deed being unregistered, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence and that so-called promissory note, Ex.P-2 did not prove that there was, in fact, an agreement of sale of the property in dispute, in the eventuality of defendant failing to repay the loan amount upon demand by the plaintiff. Treating the entire case of the plaintiff as a suit for simple recovery of money, holding it to be barred by limitation, the suit was dismissed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submits that he would be confining his appeal only to the aspect of issue of limitation in so far as the claim of recovery of money is concerned without assailing the findings that the plaintiff failed to prove creation of valid mortgage or that he had a right to get the sale deed executed in his favour by enforcement of the agreement. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his submissions, argued that even if the entire case of the plaintiff is treated as a suit for recovery of loan amount, as the promissory note, Ex.P-2 has been held to be proved by the learned trial Court, which contains recital that loan amount would be payable on demand, the limitation would begin to run only when the demand is made and not from the date when the loan was advanced as provided under Section 22 of the Limitation Act. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Janki Devi and Ors. vs. Juggilal Kamlapat, AIR 1971 SC 2551 . 6. There is no representation made by the respondents even though, the case was taken up in the second round. 7. In view of the limited ground of challenge raised by learned counsel for the appellant, following points arise for consideration:- (A) Whether the plaintiff proved that he had advanced total loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/- to the defendants on different dates. (B) Whether the defendant repaid the amount wholly or in part. (C) Whether the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4,70,000/- was barred by limitation. 8. (B) Whether the defendant repaid the amount wholly or in part. (C) Whether the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.4,70,000/- was barred by limitation. 8. The plaintiff has emphatically pleaded regarding advancement of loan firstly on 07-10-1996 of Rs.2,10,000/- and thereafter Rs.2,60,000/- on 21-09-1999. Specific pleadings in this regard have been made in the plaint, but these pleadings have been denied. 9. Learned Trial Court has correctly held that mortgage deed, Ex.P-1 is not admissible in evidence for want of registration as proof of the fact of creation of mortgage. Nevertheless, for limited collateral purpose, such document, found to have been duly executed, could be relied upon. The documents dated 07-10-1996, Ex.P-1 contains recital of the plaintiff having advanced loan of Rs.2,10,000/- to the defendant in the presence of the witnesses. The defendant DW-1 in his evidence has admitted his signature on the said document, but his case has been that he had taken loan of Rs.1 lakh not from the plaintiff, but from his father Tarachand and as a security for repayment of loan, Tarachand required him to sign blank stamp paper. Baldev Nishad, PW-2 has stated in his affidavit that on 07-10-1996, the defendant purchased a stamp paper of Rs.10/- and agreement of advancement of loan and repayment was scribed in it, which was signed by Pradeep Jethwa, the defendant and the plaintiff-Prakash Chand. Thereafter, this witness himself signed the document and in his presence, Rs.2,10,000/- was advanced by the plaintiff-Prakash Chand to the defendant-Pradeep Jethwa. He has proved his signature on the said document. This witness has been subjected to detailed cross-examination. However, we do not find anything to disbelieve that this was not the witness of the transaction of loan of Rs.2,10,000/- paid by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, for the limited purpose of proving advancement of loan of Rs.2,10,000/- to the defendant, the said document helps and comes to the aid of the plaintiff and the defendant's story of he having received Rs.1,10,000/- and that too from the father of the plaintiff and that he only signed the blank document, cannot be accepted. 10. The execution of the promissory note, Ex.P-2, on 21-09-1999 is also proved from the reliable evidence of the plaintiff-Prakash Chand, PW-1and plaintiff's witness Govind Raj Naidu, PW-3. 10. The execution of the promissory note, Ex.P-2, on 21-09-1999 is also proved from the reliable evidence of the plaintiff-Prakash Chand, PW-1and plaintiff's witness Govind Raj Naidu, PW-3. Govind Raj Naidu, PW-3 has stated that in his presence, the plaintiff had advanced loan of Rs.2,60,000/- to the defendant and the defendant had signed the written stamp document containing recital of acknowledgment of loan and other conditions stated therein. The defendant has admitted his signatures on this document also but then his case has been that he signed the blank stamp papers, the stand of the defendant on this count also appears to be a cock and bull story. The defendant having admitted that he signed the documents coupled with emphatic evidence of Govind Raj Naidu, PW-3, we are inclined to hold that the defendant executed the promissory note Ex.P/2 acknowledging his liability of repayment of loan of Rs.4,70,000/-. Moreover, the said promissory note, Ex.P-2 contains important recital to the effect that the loan amount shall be repayable on demand. 11. The defendant in his cross-examination has admitted having received demand notice Ex.P/8 and he further admits that despite receiving the said notice, he did not give any reply. 12. The case of the defendant that earlier loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh was taken by him and the said amount has been repaid, has no legs to stand. There is no acknowledgment of receipt of any money produced by him to prove that the loan taken by him, was repaid. Once the plaintiff has succeeded in proving their oral and documentary evidence of having advanced loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/-, the defendant ought to have come out with a clinching evidence of repayment of loan. 13. Accordingly, we have to hold that the plaintiff had advanced loan of Rs.4,70,000/- and the defendant has failed to repay the loan. 14. The question which arises for consideration, whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. It is not a case of simple loan transaction to say that the plaintiff was required to file a suit for recovery of money advanced as loan within a period of three years. Promissory note, Ex.P/2, which has been held proved by the Court below and by this also, clearly contains recital of repayment of loan, upon demand. It is not a case of simple loan transaction to say that the plaintiff was required to file a suit for recovery of money advanced as loan within a period of three years. Promissory note, Ex.P/2, which has been held proved by the Court below and by this also, clearly contains recital of repayment of loan, upon demand. If that be so, the period of limitation will have to be counted in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Limitation Act, which reads as under:- Serial Number Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 22. For money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, including money of a customer in the hands of his banker so payable. Three years When the demand is made. In view of above, the limitation will begin to run from the date of demand. 15. Notice, Ex.P/8 required the defendant to repay the loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/- within a period of 15 days. If the limitation is counted in this manner, the period of limitation begins to run from the date of notice dated 03-01-2006. The present suit having filed in the year 2006, was squarely within the period of limitation. Therefore, the learned trial Court committed an error of law in holding that the suit as barred by limitation. 16. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree dated 26-08-2010 passed by the Ninth Additional District Judge (FTC) Durg in Civil Suit No. 5-A/2007 is set aside and the plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs.4,70,000/- is decreed. The plaintiff filed suit in the year 2006. In the circumstances of the case, we are inclined to direct payment of interest @ 12% from the date of filing of suit till realization. In view of above, Order dated 17-08-2015 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Durg in Civil MJC (Review) No.21/2013 is also set aside. 17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The plaintiff's suit is decreed with costs throughout including cost of suit and cost of review. Let appellate decree be drawn accordingly.