Sheikh Akbar vs Sheikh Khan And Anr. on 31 May, 1881
8. The defendant by his written statement admitted that he borrowed Rs. 200 from the plaintiff, and there can be no doubt that an implied contract to repay money lent always arises from the fact that the money is lent, even though no express promise, either written or verbal, is made to repay it. As this is the undoubted law, it must follow that, when the defendant admits that he borrowed the Rs. 200, he also admits that he promised to repay it; and if he has not done so, the plaintiff may maintain an action against him for breach of his implied promise or contract, entirely independently of any security which may have been given 'for the advance. The case which has been relied upon by the defendant is that of Sheikh Akhar v. Sheikh Khan I.L.R. 7 Cal. 256, in which Sir Richard Garth said: "When the original cause of action is the bill or note itself and does not exist independently of it, as, for instance, when in consideration of A depositing money with B, B contracts by a promissory note to repay it with interest at six months' date, here there is no cause of action for money lent or otherwise than upon the note itself, because the deposit is made on the terms contained in the note and no other." These words, taken alone, may seem to indicate that when a bill or note is taken for a debt the action must be brought upon the bill or note; and that if for any reason the document is excluded, the action must fail; but a reference to the earlier portion of the judgment shows that such was not the meaning of the Chief Justice, and that when he spoke of a deposit he did not mean a loan, as he then says where money is lent and a bill or note given for the loan which is not paid at maturity, the creditor may disregard the note and sue on the original consideration.