PURAN CHAND Vs. J&K BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal and arises out of a suit instituted by him for the recovery of Rs. 1500 against the Jammu and Kashmir Bank defendant. The plaintiff s case was that he had deposited in the savings bank account a sum ot Rs. 1400 on 11 -3 -1947 and Rs. 350 on 22 -3 -1947 in the branch of the Jammu . and Kashmir Bank at Mirpur. The plaintitt alleged that out of this amount he had withdrawn Rs. 250 and claimed the balance of Rs. 1500 from the defendant Bank. The defendant denied liability and pleaded that it had no knowledge of the deposit made by the plaintiff in its branch at Mirpur. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred by time. The trial Court after examining the evidence adduced by the parties found that the plaintiff had proved that Rs, 1500 was due to him from the Bank but his suit was barred by time The plaintiffs suit was accordingly dismissed. On appeal the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court on the point of limitation and held that the suit was within time. But after going through the evidence he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that a sum of Rs 1500 was due to him from the Bank. The plaintiff s appeal was dismissed The plaintiff has come up in further appeal to this Court.

(2.) IT is argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned District Judge was in error in reversing the finding of the trial Court in regard to the amount deposited by the plaintiff in Mirpur branch of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank. We have been taken through the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff in support of his claim for Rs. 1500 against the defendant Bank. The plaintiff has produced Tara Chand who worked as a treasurer in the Mirpur branch of the defendant Bank. According to this witness Rs. 1300 or Rs. 1400 were deposited by the plaintiff on one occasion and at another time a few hundred rupees were again deposited by him. The witness was not definite about the amount which the plaintiff had deposited on the second occasion. The learned District Judge has discarded his evidence with the remark that it was difficult for the W1tness to remember the name of a person who had deposited some amount in Bank about 13 or 14 years ago. This in our opinion is no good ground for ignoring the testimony of Tarachand witness produced by the plaintiff. It is not disputed that Tara Chand was helping his son who was a cashier in the Mirpur branch of the defendant Bank. He deposed that the plaintiff had twice deposited money in the savings bank account at the Mirpur Branch of the defendant Bank. According to this witness on one occasion the plaintiff had deposited Rs. 1300 or Rs. 1400 but he did not know the amount which was deposited by him on the second occasion. The witness has not given the exact figure which it was Perhaps impossible for him to remember. But it was not improbable for the witness to remember the name of the person who was already known to him and to say that he had deposited money in the Bank on two occasions. The plaintiff has produced Barkat Ram and Baldev Ram who were taken prisoners by the raiders and were residing with him in Ali Beg Camp. According to these witnesses the plaintiff was deprived of all the documents along with the Pass Book which he had in his Possession the witnesses stated that they had seen the Pass Book and had noticed an entry therein in regard to the deposit of Rs. 1500 in the savings bank account of the Mirpur branch of Jammu and Kashmir Bank to the credit of the plaintiff. The learned district Judge has brushed aside their evidence on the ground that the plaintiff in his plaint has mentioned that he lost his Pass Book in enemy action whereas the evidence showed that the Pass Book was lost in Ali Beg Camp. We do not see there is any inconsistency in the averments made in the plaint and the evidence led by the plaintiff in regard to the loss of the Pass Book. In the plaint the plaintiff has not mentioned the place where he lost the Pass Book. He has averred that the Pass Book was lost during enemy action. The incident when the plaintiff was taken as a prisoner to Ali Beg Camp is covered by enemy action and the evidence adduced by the plaintiff to show that he lost the Pass Book in Ali Beg Camp does not contradict the averments made in the plaint. We find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Barkat Ram and Baldev Ram who were detained in Ali Beg Camp along with the plaintiff. They had seen the Pass Book of the Mirpur branch of the Jammu and Kashmir Bank in which there was an entry of Rs. 1500 to the credit of the plaintiff and that Pass Book was taken away from him by the raiders in Ali Beg Camp. Moreover, the plaintiff had informed the defendant soon after he was released from Ali Beg Camp that he had Rs. 1500 in the saving bank account with the Mirpur branch of the defendant Bank and had requested the defendant to arrange to make payment of the same. The fact that the plaintiff informed the Bank about his claim immediately after his release shows that it was a genuine demand. The evidence produced by the plaintiff, in our opinion fully establishes the claim made by him against the defendant Bank and the trial Court had rightly held so.

(3.) IT has been argued on behalf of the respondent Bank that the suit was barred by limitation inasmuch as the plaintiff had made demand in regard to the amount in the years 1948 and 1952 and the suit was brought after the lapse of six years from the date of the demand The defendant respondent has not produced any letter of the plaintiff to show that an unqualified demand was made by the plaintiff for the suit money. The defendant relied upon copy of a letter written by one Ram Prakash, a relation of the plaintiff, in September 1952 requesting the Bank for the return of the amount deposited by the plaintiff. The original letter was in the possession of the defendant and it has not been produced. The copy of the letter on which reliance has been placed was produced by Ram Parkash but no question was asked front him whether the original, letter was actually posted to the Bank or not. Under these, circumstances the copy of the letter produced by the plaintiff is of no avail to the defendant. Moreover, under Article. 90 of the State Limitation Act the demand which would start limitation to run against the plaintiff ought to have been an unqualified and effective demand made by him for the money deposited with the defendant But we find that the demand was not made by the plaintiff but by a relation of his requesting the defendant to make arrangements for the return of money. The mere request by a person who was not competent to give a valid discharge of the debt would not be such a demand as would start limitation against the plaintiff under Article 90 of the State Limitation Act. Reliance in this behalf may be placed on Subbiah Chetty and others versus Visalakshi Achi, A. I. R. 1932 Madras 685 in which it has been held: