ROMESH SURI Vs. PUNJAB CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant's father had made a deposit with the Respondent Bank. After his death, the plaintiff-appellant was declared as the sole legal heir by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Delhi vide order dated April 28, 1964. In pursuance to this declaration, the Respondent-Bank paid a sum of Rs. 11,685.60 to the appellant on June 4, 1964. This was in lieu of the fixed deposit receipt which had matured on January 23, 1948. The appellant filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 5,250/- on account of interest from January 23, 1948 to June 4, 1964 on the ground that the money had been retained and utilised by the Bank. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. However, the judgment was reversed by the lower appellate Court.

(2.) The Court has found that the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff in the year 1954 when he had himself made a request for payment of interest on the FDR pending decision regarding the final payment. As such, the point of limitation would run from (the) year 1954 and in view of the matter, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. "Secondly, it has been held that "the FDR was for three years and there is a mention in every FDR that the interest would cease from a particular date. The Court has found that there was no agreement or usage proved on the record which may entitle the plaintiff to claim interest after the date of maturity of the fixed deposit.

(3.) Counsel for the appellant is unable to show that the suit filed in the year 1964 was within limitation. Indisputably, the plaintiff-appellant's claim had been disputed by the Respondent-Bank in the year 1954. The cause of action, if any, had accrued. Yet, no proceedings were initiated for a period of 10 years. In this situation, it cannot be said that the lower appellate court had erred in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. Equally, it has been found by the lower appellate Court that the FDR clearly mentioned that "the interest would cease from the particular date." That being so, the plaintiff cannot claim interest after the date of maturity. It may unfair. Yet, it is not illegal. It calls for no interference in a second appeal.