UNION OF INDIA Vs. CHHATTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHATTAR Singh had a Savings Account in Jullundur City Post Office. Rs. 5324/14/- were lying to his credit in the said account. It appears that he lost his post office pass book of this account somewhere between 14th may 1956, and 14th June, 1956. He however, applied for a duplicate of the same in October, 1956 and when it was issued to him on 26th November, 1956, he found that his account was less by Rs. 5200/-, which, according to the entries in the pass book had been withdrawn on 3rd July, 1956. Thereupon, he had some correspondence with the postal authorities to the effect that he had not withdrawn the said amount. When he did not receive any satisfactory reply, he filed the suit, in July 1958 for the recovery of Rs. 5200/ -. The suit was brought against the Union of India and Karam chand, the postal clerk of the said Post Office at the relevant time, defendants nos. 1 and 2, after issuing a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure to defendant No. 1 only.

(2.) THE suit was contested by both the defendants. According to defendant No. 1 rs. 5200/- had actually been withdrawn from the Savings Bank Account of the plaintiff on the date mentioned in the pass-book but the said amount had been paid on the presentation of the pass-book and the withdrawal form, duly signed by the depositor, as required under the rules. According to the defendant No. 1, the plaintiff had been negligent about the pass book and had not taken any steps to inform the postal authorities soon after its loss. Defendant No. 1 was not responsible for the said loss. The Post Office did not accept any responsibility for the loss occasioned to the depositor by the loss of the pass-book and the consequent fraudulent withdrawal vide rule 21 of the Savings Bank Rules, 1881, the relevant portion of which reads: "they (depositors) should also be careful to keep their pass book in their own possession as the post office does not accept responsibility for any loss caused to the depositor if through his negligence, any person shall obtain possession of the book and fraudulently obtain payment of any sum belonging to the depositor. " Defendant No. 2 also contested the suit and according to him, the plaintiff had no cause of action against him. He pleaded that no notice under Section 80. Code of Civil Procedure, had been issued to him and-therefore, the suit merited dismissal on that ground alone.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:--