MOST REVD DR L MATHIAS, S C THE ARCHBISHOP OF MADRAS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE CATHOLIC INDIAN ASSOCIATION Vs. KILACHERI AGRICULTURAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit in which the plaintiffs are suing the defendants for a sum of Rs. 5,300, together with interest, which it is alleged was. deposited by the plaintiffs or by those in whose shoes the plaintiffs now stand, with the defendant Bank, upon fixed deposit for a specified period, and at the end of that period, the money was not returned to the plaintiffs. In the written statement, in addition to formal matters such as not admitting the allegations, it is alleged that the one who received the actual deposit was not authorised by the defendants so to do, and was acting outside his authority when he accepted the deposit from the plaintiffs, that under the rules and bye-laws of the defendant Bank the panchayatdars have a discretion to accept or not to accept a deposit of every description before the Bank is bound by the deposit and that the mere receipt by the person who in fact received this money, namely, the secretary, would not constitute a valid deposit and that the panchayatdars did not indicate their acceptance of the deposit. In other words, it is alleged in the written statement that the secretary of the defendants was acting outside the scope of his apparent and obvious authority to the knowledge of the defendants when the money deposited was paid and further that the Bank have not under its rules and bye-laws accepted responsibility for this deposit to the knowledge of the defendants.

(2.) On behalf of the defendants, no evidence has been called, and at the close of the plaintiff's case, I was asked to adjourn the further trial for the defendants to be able at a future date to call evidence in support of their case. I refused the application, firstly because this case has been notified for some two or three weeks as being in the list for trial and parties should be ready for trial. If of course a witness is ill or is unable to be here, naturally one adjourns a case to enable the evidence of that witness to be called. Secondly the application, made when it was, in my view, had no support or justification for the grant of an adjournment.

(3.) The facts are as follows : The Catholic Indian Association of Southern India had funds at their disposal which apparently they desired to invest upon fixed deposits at profitable rates of interest. At all relevant times, Mr. Thambi Pillai was the Honorary Secretary of this Association, and it was he who in fact made the deposit, the subject-matter of this suit, as well as other deposits. In all, seven deposits were made by the Association through the gentleman I have mentioned, and the . method in which they were made was this, with the exception of the first one or two. The defendant Bank has its premises at Kilacheri, and again at material times, the secretary and treasurer was Mr. M. Papayya Naidu. That gentleman was frequently in Madras, and when the Catholic Association desired to make a deposit upon fixed deposit with the defendant Bank, the secretary and treasurer of the Bank would call upon Mr. Thambi Pillai. Money would then be handed over in cash to the Bank's secretary and treasurer, and he would in return hand over to the Association's representative a fixed deposit receipt. That fixed deposit receipt obviously comes from a book which is Ex. B-1, and Mr. Thambi Pillai, P.W. 1, said in his evidence which I accept, that so far as his recollection goes, the receipt was always a loose receipt. On this particular occasion, namely, 3 October, 1929, Rs. 5,300 was handed over at the request of the Bank's treasurer and secretary, a clerk at the Catholic Association's Office filled up the blanks, it was signed by the Bank's treasurer and given in exchange. That was the procedure in certainly five of the seven deposits. In the first two, the deposits were in fact made at Kilacheri by the local Catholic priest who was requested so to do by the authorities in Madras. In respect of all these deposits, interest has been paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs as and when it-became due, perhaps a little time following the due date. In respect of all the deposits except the last one, the one concerning this suit, the principal monies have been repaid by the defendants to the plaintiffs, and nothing arises in regard to those six earlier transactions. With regard to the last one, Rev. Mora who is the Vicar-General to the Archbishop of Madras, who is P.W. 2, has been called, and whose evidence I accept entirely, and he says that in the course of his duties he received interest in respect of the fixed deposit which is the subject-matter of this suit and he entered in his books at the time of receipt a record of payment of the interest, and interest was payable in the months of October in the years 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933, since the fixed deposit was for a term of five years from October, 1929, and would be repayable in October, 1934, and that interest was paid in cash by the secretary and treasurer of the defendant Bank at the Vicar- General's office. Father Mora also says that he received interest upon all the other deposits, six in number, made in the way I have already mentioned, in the same manner, namely, by the secretary and treasurer coming to his office, paying in cash amounts from time to time due in respect of interest on those deposits and that he recorded in his books, similarly as he did with this one, receipts of interest. In addition to the deposits which I have already mentioned and made by the plaintiffs or, as I said, those in whose shoes the plaintiffs stand, the defendants have received other deposits, and they have received them, in exactly the same way, namely, their secretary and treasurer, the same man M. Papayya Naidu, going to the houses or offices of the potential depositors, receiving the amount of the deposit, mostly in cash and sometimes by cheque, giving a deposit receipt either loose already filled in or filled in at the house of the depositor, sometimes torn from the counterfoil book, and on, I think, one occasion a mere acknowledgment was given of the receipt of the money paid and the fixed deposit receipt was sent a day or two later to the depositor from the Bank's premises at Kilacheri. Witnesses P.Ws. 3, 4 and 5 speak to these other deposits which are entirely unconnected with those made by the plaintiffs. Those other deposits mentioned by the three witnesses above have been repaid by the defendant Bank except in regard to one of which there is no evidence that it has been repaid nor is there any suggestion put to the witnesses who spoke about it that the defendants repudiated it on the ground that M. Papayya Naidu had no authority from them when he accepted those deposits.