THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BRANCH OFFICE Vs. MULTANMULL MISRIMULL FIRM, G.T., BY PARTNER SAMMANMULL GNANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of Basheer Ahmed Sayeed, J., which reversed the decree of the Third Additional City Civil Judge, Madras, in O.S. No. 180 of 1949. That suit was instituted by the firm called M/s. Multanmull Misrimull, carrying on business in Perumal Mudali Street, George Town, Madras, against the Central Bank of India, Ltd., having a branch office in China Bazaar Road, Madras, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,055 -10 -0 with interest from the date of the plaint under the following circumstances. The plaintiff in the suit, the respondent before us, paid a sum of Rs. 5,000 into the China Bazaar branch of the appellant -Bank in Madras on 4th January, 1949, for the purpose of effecting a transfer of this sum by telegram to their representative in Ferozabad, one Milapchand Motaji. The appellant -Bank had a branch at Terozabad. According to the case in the plaint, when Milapchand went to the defendant's branch at Ferozabad on 5th January, 1949, a stamped receipt, was obtained from him for a sum of Rs. 5,000 after he was identified and he was given a metal token in accordance with the practice of the Bank to enable him to receive payment of the telegraphic transfer from the cashier of the Bank. When Milapchand presented this token to the cashier, the latter offered to pay him only Rs. 1,000 and not Rs. 5,000 which was the amount of the telegraphic transfer in his favour. Milapchand naturally refused to receive payment of Rs. 1,000 and informed his principals, the plaintiffs, in Madras. In spite of demand, the defendant -Bank refused to return the sum of Rs. 5,000 paid by the plaintiff into the China Bazaar branch for the purpose of telegraphic transfer.

(2.) THE defendant -Bank pleaded that on 5th January, 1949, a sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid to Milapchand after obtaining from him a duly stamped receipt. In paragraph 3 of the written statement, a further plea was taken that Milapchand was given metal token No. 5451 as soon as he executed the stamped receipt, and when Milapchand's name was called out by the cashier of the Ferozabad branch, metal token No. 5451 was produced and the person who produced that token was paid a sum of Rs. 5,000. In paragraph 4 of the written statement, the further plea taken is that the Bank had reasons to believe that Milapchand conspired with another person and attempted to play a fraud on the Bank, but was not successful.

(3.) THE learned Judge held that the evidence did not establish that it was not Milapchand who presented token No. 5451, or that the sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid to Milapchand by the cashier of the Bank. He further found that the payment of Rs. 5,000 by the cashier to the person who tendered token No. 5451, even if true, would not discharge the defendant -Bank from liability.