CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD Vs. RAM SARUP KHANNA
LAWS(P&H)-1954-3-1
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on March 25,1954

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
RAM SARUP KHANNA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Khosla, J. - (1.) This second appeal has arisen out of a suit brought by Bam Sarup for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,800/- due on the basis of a Government promissory- note of the face value of Rs. 2,000/-. The defendants in the case were the Central Bank of India and Srikishan Parshad. The trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 721/6/- in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No. 1. Against this decree an appeal was taken - to the Court of the District Judge by the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 filed cross-objections with regard to the amount decreed. The District Judge allowed the plaintiffs appeal and granted a decree for the entire sum of Rs. 2,784/11/- which was the amount due upon the promissory-note including interest. The Central Bank has come up in second appeal to this Court.
(2.) The facts of the case briefly are that a Government promissory-note for Rs. 2,000/- was held by Ram Sarup plaintiff. He endorsed it in favour of the Central Bank and delivered it to them. On the 9th of September 1946 Ram Sarup wrote the following letter to the Bank- "Dear Sir, Re:3 1/2 % G. P. note of 1865 No. 387997 for Rs. 2,000/-. As desired by Mr. Srikishan Parshad, I request you to kindly submit the above note to the Reserve Bank of India for encashment, and hand over the sum of RS. 2,000/- with, Interest to L. Srikishan Parshad. I have no right, title, or interest in the above note. The interest could not be recovered for many years because this note was lying as security in the High Court at Lahore. The aforesaid Court released it in 1946, but as half portion of the note had been mislaid about which I also reported to the Public Debt Office, Delhi, some time ago. Eventually the said half portion was found. There is no other special reason for non-realization of Interest." This letter was taken to the Bank by Srikishan Parshad himself. On the 19th of September 1946 Srikishan Parshad wrote to the Bank asking for the money due upon the promissory-note or an advance against the note. On the same date the Bank advanced a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to Srikishan Parshad and debited him with the amount in an account opened on that day. A copy of this account (Exhibit D. 6) has been placed on the record. On the 27th of September 1946 Bam Sarup wrote to the Bank cancelling the previous instructions which he had issued on the 9th of September. The terms of this letter are as follows: "With reference to my letter dated 5th instant, I am sorry to say that as Mr. Srikishan Parshad has not fulfilled his part of the agreement, the instructions given by me in the aforesaid letter should not be acted upon, and further action should be stopped." Thereafter the Bank realised the sum due upon the promissory-note and adjusted it in the account of Srikishan Parshad.
(3.) The plaintiff brought a suit against the Bank claiming that since he had cancelled the instructions given to the Bank, he was entitled to recover the money due upon the Government promissory-note. The Bank's defence was that the instructions were not revocable and that the amount due on the note had been paid in full to Srikishan Parshad.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.