LAWS(PVC)-1930-2-23

BENARES BANK LIMITED Vs. RAM PRASAD

Decided On February 05, 1930
BENARES BANK LIMITED Appellant
V/S
RAM PRASAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two suits brought by the Benares Bank Limited, plaintiff-appellant, before the Munsif, Benares City, for recovery of certain sums of money. One of these suits was brought against (1) Ram Prasad, (2) Mahadeo Prasad and (3) Mahabali Prasad, the three defendants on the allegations that defendant 3 had a savings bank account with the plaintiff's bank; that there was collusion between him and Ram Prasad the clerk in charge of the savings bank account, and Mahadeo Prasad, another employee of the bank; and that though Mahabali Prasad had only Rs. 101-3-1 to his credit, not less than Rs. 800 were drawn, Rs. 200 on 3 February 1924, by Mahadeo Prasad on the authority of a letter alleged to have been written by Mahabali Prasad, Rs. 200 on 23 January 1924, Rs. 200 on 25 January 1924, and Rs. 200 on 13 February 1924, by Mahabali Prasad himself knowing that be had not enough money to his credit and that Ram Prasad the clerk in charge who was in complicity with the other two, allowed the four sums to be drawn to the detriment of the plaintiff. Ram Prasad was convicted of offences under Secs.403 and 447-A, I.P.C. on 9 July 1924, by the Sessions Judge, Benares. The plaintiff claims Rs. 698-12-11 out of the Rupees 800 drawn in the manner already stated, being the amount overdrawn in the account of Mahabali Prasad. Second Appeal No. 1174 has arisen out of this suit.

(2.) The other suit which has given rise to the connected appeal No. 1175 of 1927 was brought against Ram Prasad, Harshankar Lal and Mahabali Prasad on similar allegations. It relates to a sum of Rs. 300 drawn by Mahabali Prasad on the authority of a letter alleged to have been written by Harshankar Lal, another depositor in the savings bank account. Ram Prasad is alleged to have allowed the withdrawal of this sum with full knowledge that Harshankar Lal had no money to his credit in his account. If the allegations contained in the plaints of the two suits briefly stated above are true, Ram Prasad, the clerk in charge of the savings bank accounts, who has been since convicted of serious offences of forgery and falsification of accounts, was principally responsible for the fraudulent transactions to which the plaintiff's claims refer.

(3.) The only defence which it is necessary to take notice of at this stage is one of limitation. Both these suits were brought within three years from the dates on which the sums claimed by the plaintiff-appellant were drawn. The defendants plead that the period of limitation for the suits brought by the plaintiff-appellant on the allegations contained in the plaints is two years. Both the lower Courts have held that Art. 36, Sch. 1, Lim. Act, which provides a period of two years, is applicable to the circumstances of these cases. The plaintiff bank has preferred these two appeals from the decrees of the lower Courts dismissing the two suits.