FEDERAL BANK LTD Vs. GEEVARGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in the suit, the Federal Bank Limited, is the appellant here. THE plaintiff claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 54000/-in the Angamali Branch of the defendant Bank on 8 71959. It was a short notice deposit liable to be repaid with interest at 15 days' notice. THE plaintiff's case is that when notice for payment of the amount due under (he deposit was made the Bank did not make the payment and therefore the suit was necessitated.

(2.) THE defendant Bank has its registered office at Alwaye which is very near Angamali. THE plaintiff who was a resident of Angamali was said to have been having dealings ever since 1952 with the Angamali Branch of the defendant Bank. According to the plaintiff for the deposit of Rs. 54000/-he made in that Branch on 8 71959 a deposit receipt was given to him. Interest upto 3112 1960 is said to have been paid and when on 6 31961 the amount due under the deposit account was demanded, it was not paid even after the expiry of 15 days. THErefore a notice was issued to the defendant Bank on 24-3-1961 and to this notice a reply was given by the defendant Bank denying its liability to pay. THE deposit receipt has been issued by the Agent of the Bank. Against that Agent proceedings had been taken by the Bank for misappropriation of amounts due to it and ever since 1961 when the proceedings were so commenced, the Agent is said to have been absconding. THE case of the defendant is that no deposit was made by the plaintiff with the Angamali Branch and the fixed deposit receipt was not a genuine and valid receipt issued by the defendant Bank in the ordinary course of business. THE Agent of the Bank Sri. A. P. George is said to have colluded with the plaintiff and brought into existence the receipt without receiving any money for the Bank. It is said that since such receipt of money, if any, was not in the ordinary course of business it was not binding on the defendant Bank. THE payment of interest is also denied. In the Bank records the counterfoil of the deposit receipt relied on by the plaintiff is seen to be of a deposit of Rs. 500/-in the name of Kumari george, the wife of the Agent. Sri. A. P. George. THE issue of notice by the plaintiff to the Bank on 6 31961 for payment of money after 15 days is denied. In short, the case of the defendant is that the plaintiff; has not paid any money to the defendant Bank and even if it has been paid to the Agent the Bank is not liable as such payment was not made in the ordinary course of business of the defendant Bank.

(3.) AS we said earlier, Angamali is a place very near alwaye, only about 8 to 10 miles away. The defendant Bank has its Head Office at Alwaye. Sri. A. P. George was the Agent of the Angamali Branch for a fairly long period until he was transferred from there towards the end of 1960. He was transferred to the Munnar Branch of the Bank where he is said to have joined duty sometime in January, 1961. Sri. George also belong to Angamali. The plaintiff and his wife claimed to be customers of the defendant Bank. Though this is denied in the written statement the averments in the written statement themselves show that they had dealings with the defendant Bank all along. AS early as in 1952 the plaintiff had opened a current account in the Angamli branch of the Bank. The plaintiff had made various deposits in 1954 and 1955. Para. 8 of the written statement details these deposits. It is seen therefrom that one of the deposits made in 1954 was withdrawn in 1955 and several other deposits made in 1954,1955 and 1956 were all withdrawn on 19 61956. The total amount seen to be so withdrawn on 19 61956 was a sum of Rs. 23000/- and interest. The plaintiff's wife had also made deposits in 1954 of Rs. 14000/-, and that too was seen withdrawn in 1956. Apparently the amount so withdrawn by the plaintiff and his wife were kept with them until a sum of Rs. 30000/- is seen deposited again on 17121956 in the name of the plaintiff's wife. This amount was withdrawn on 3 41957. It is the plaintiff's case that it was so withdrawn for purchase of a property and when it could not be so purchased it was again re-deposited in the Bank, Rs. 20000/- in the name of the plaintiff and rs. 10000/-in the name of his wife. Besides this four other small deposits were also said to have been made subsequently and it is these sums which are said to have been adjusted in making the fresh deposit of Rs. 54000/ -. It is said that besides the amounts thus due under the deposits a sum of Rs. 1575115 9 was also paid in cash so as to have the deposit for a round sum of Rs. 54000/ -.