MULTANMUL MISRIMUL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned Third Additional City Civil Judge dismissing the suit brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5055-10-0 with interest thereon

(2.) THE plaintiffs who are the appellants carry on business in Madras under the name and style of Messrs. Multanmul Misrimul, and the defendants are the Central Bank of India Limited with their branch at No. 271 China Bazar Road, George Town, Madras. On 4th January, 1949, the plaintiffs entrusted the defendants a sum of Rs. 5, 000 for being transferred by telegram to Ferozabad, the same to be paid over to the plaintiffs' representative one Milapchand Mottaji at Ferozabad for the purchase of bangles on behalf of the plaintiffs' firm. THE defendant bank which has an office at Ferozabad received the amount of Rs. 5, 000 and also the charges incidental for the telegraphic transfer from the plaintiffs, and undertook to transfer the same to Ferozabad and to pay over the said amount to Milapchand Mottaji. After payment of the said Rs. 5, 000 and the charges for telegraphic transfer to the defendant bank at Madras, the plaintiffs advised their representative, Milapchand Mottaji, to go to the defendant bank at Ferozabad and receive the amount. In pursuance thereof when the plaintiffs' representative, Milapchand Mottaji, went to the defendant bank at Ferozabad the bank officials carried out the formalities before payment could be made, viz., obtained a stamped receipt from the plaintiffs' representative after proper identification and attestation and gave in turn a metal token No. 5451 in accordance with the usual practice of the bank to the said Milapchand Mottaji for receiving payment. When Milapchand Mottaji was called for receiving payment and when he presented the token, the cashier of the bank offered him to pay only Rs. 1, 000 as against Rs. 5, 000, which the representative was entitled to receive. THE said representative refused to receive Rs. 1, 000 and demanded payment of the sum of Rs. 5, 000 instead, which was the amount of telegraphic transfer payable to him. THE defendant bank at Ferozabad informed the plaintiffs' representative thereupon that the sum of Rs. 5, 000 had already been paid and that the representative was entitle only to receive Rs. 1, 000. THEreafter, the representative was entitled only to receive Rs. 1, 000. THEreafter, the representative of the plaintiffs' firm intimated to the plaintiffs the refusal of the bank to pay Rs. 5, 000 remitted through the bank and after exchange of notices, the plaintiffs' firm filed and suit to recover the said sum of Rs. 5, 000 and the incidental charges and interest thereonTHE defendants in their written statement admitted the receipt of the sum paid by the plaintiffs for transmission to Milapchand Mottaji at Ferozabad and its transfer in due course to Ferozabad to be paid to the representative of the plaintiffs. With regard to payment the defendants stated that on the 5th January, 1949, the amount of Rs. 5, 000 was paid to the said Milapchand Mottaji after obtaining from him a stamped receipt attested by one who identified the said representative to the bank at Ferozabad. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, the defendant bank described the procedure for the payment of money received by them by telegraphic transfer and stated that when the cashier called out the name of Milapchand Mottaji, token No. 5451 said to have been given to Milapchand Mottaji was produced and that the cashier, after verifying the number of the token with the number noted on the receipt, paid the sum of Rs. 5, 000 to the person who produced the said token. THE defendants further averred that they had reason to believe that after payment was made to him, the said Milapchand Mottaji conspired with another and attempted to play a fraud on the bank, but was not successful. THE defendants also denied that there was any question of trust or entrustment in the case

(3.) AFTER considering the documentary and oral evidence on both sides, he came to the conclusion that the evidence on the side of the defendants was acceptable and found the issue against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiffs have, therefore, preferred this appeal