UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. KANAN BALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an Appeal by Special Leave filed by the plaintiff bank against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court, arising from Suit No. 547 of 1952, filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 17,091-0-1 with interest. The question involved in this appeal is a short one, but of general importance to banks in the country. We have made it clear to the appellant bank that we are interested only in laying down the law in this appeal and not in giving a decree to the bank for this small amount, the claim for which originated nearly 35 years ago. The learned counsel for the appellant bank has agreed to this suggestion.

(2.) The defendant in the suit was one Ramesh Chandra Roy Chowdhury. The plaintiff was the United Bank of India Ltd. The defendant had an overdraft account with the bank. He died on the 6th November. 1960. On the 20th December, 1960 the widow of the defendant, Smt. Kananbala Devi informed the Deshapriya Park Branch of the death of the defendant. The bank had several branches in Calcutta. One of the branches was the Royal Exchange Branch. It was this branch that instituted the suit in question.

(3.) The applications for impleading the legal representatives of the defendant and for setting aside abatement were made by a Chambers Summons on the 8th August, 1968 about 8 years after the death of the defendant. The delay in making these applications was attempted to be explained with the plea that the Royal Exchange Branch of the bank had no knowledge of the death of the defendant till the Deshapriya Park Branch was informed of the death. The High Court rejected the applications holding that "...............In our opinion it is explanation to say that the Royal Exchange Branch of the plaintiff Bank which had really instituted the suit could not and/or did not have knowledge of the death of Romesh Chandra Roy Choudhury. An intimation of the death of Romesh Chandra Roy Choudhury to the Bank in its Deshapriya Park Branch could not be treated as no intimation to the Bank which happens to be the plaintiff in this suit. In our view no sufficient cause was shown in the petition for setting aside the abatement and the learned Judge was right in dismissing the said application. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed ............" Hence this appeal.