(1.) This is a first appeal by the Allahabad Bank Ltd., defendant, against an order in appeal of the learned District Judge of Farrukhabad holding that the suit of the plaintiff lies in the Court of the Civil Judge at Farrukhabad. The plaintiffs are the children of one Nand Lal Gupta and they state in para. 1 of the plaint that Nand Lal Gupta held a fixed deposit of Rs. 3000 with the defendant Bank and that Nand Lal Gupta died on 25 February 1934 at Farrukhabad as the manager of the plaintiff's joint Hindu family. Para. 2 sets out that the plaintiffs are the sole surviving heirs of Nand Lal Gupta. Para. 4 sets out that the cause of action accrued at Farrukhabad on 25 February 1934 on the death of Nand Lal Gupta and on 15th October 1935, the date of the refusal by the defendant to renew the deposit or make the payment till the establishment of legal title. The Bank in its written statement admitted that Nand Lal Gupta had a fixed deposit account with the Bank for the period ending 19 June 1934 and the amount had not been withdrawn. The additional plea alleged that the Court in Farrukhabad had no jurisdiction. Certain other defences were taken that the plaintiffs had been asked to produce a death certificate and affidavit and indemnity bonds and that the plaintiffs bad not complied with these demands and had not obtained a limited grant of administration from a competent Court, further that the suit was barred under Section 42, Specific Relief Act.
(2.) A further written statement was filed stating that a succession certificate was necessary and "that the depositor could withdraw the moneys in question, after expiry of the period of deposit, from the defendant Bank at Agra only, after production of the fixed deposit receipt pertaining thereto," and that the Bank had no branch at Farrukhabad or Fatehgarh. The Civil Judge found that there was no jurisdiction in the Court at Farrukhabad. The plaintiffs appealed and the District Judge has held that the Farrukhabad Court has jurisdiction. The District Judge states in his judgment that Nand Lal was posted at Bareilly when he made the deposit. He was an Excise Inspector. The deposit was made with the Allahabad Bank Limited in the Agra Branch. There is no allegation to show that the deposit was made in any other way than by Nand Lal going to Agra and making the fixed deposit there. In the case of a fixed deposit, a fixed deposit receipt is granted by the Bank to the depositor and that receipt contains the terms of the contract and may refer to the rules of the Bank on the subject of fixed deposits. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in this Court admits that the plaintiffs did not produce fixed deposit receipt and that the plaintiffs have not got it. The plaint is silent on this point. No evidence has been given of the terms of the fixed deposit receipt, nor has it been shown that secondary evidence of such terms would be admissible. "We consider that it was essential for the plaintiffs to prove the terms of the written contract and to show what were the provisions in the written contract in regard to the place of repayment. Learned counsel for the appellant asks us to apply what he alleges to be a general presumption of law that the fixed deposit is repayable in any place where the plaintiffs reside and make a demand. The first ground of appeal to the Court below stated: The plaintiffs did demand the money from Farrukhabad, their place of permanent residence, hence the lower Court was the only proper forum.
(3.) It is certainly a strange doctrine of law that a fixed depositor may bring a suit for repayment from a Bank in any place where he happens to reside. If for example, the fixed depositor were in Calcutta, Bombay or Madras, the doctrine would involve that the suit may be brought in those places. Such a view of law appears to be quite intolerable. Nor does there appear to be any reason why the fixed depositor should be limited to India and if the rule existed, apparently the fixed depositor might go to any country in the world and bring a suit there if his deposit was not returned. The only rulings on which learned Counsel relies for this proposition are firstly, Sri Narain V/s. Jagannath (1917) 4 AIR All 128. This is a very brief ruling in which the facts are not clear. It is true the ruling refers to a Bank but the plaintiff and the defendant are described by the names of private persons. The facts are not stated in the ruling. It is not possible to know whether the money was lent at Cawnpore or at Bikaner, the two places mentioned in the ruling. Learned counsel relies on the following passage: It is not desirable to say more about the facts than this, that in an ordinary case especially a case against a Bank or some trader who holds himself out as a person to receive deposits, it would not necessarily follow that a repayment of the deposit was to be made at the place of business of the Bank; in the majority of such cases the intention of the parties is, obviously that the money should be paid to the depositor wherever he happened to be when he demanded repayment.