M.M.Dutt, J. - (1.) This appeal is at the instance of the defendant and it arises Out of a suit for recovery of money.
(2.) The case or the plaintiff as made in the plaint is as follows:-- The plaintiff is the nephew (Sister's son) of one Paritosh Bhattacharjee. Paritosh Bhattacharjee and some of the members of his family had been, at the material time, the directors of the defendant company named Bhattacharjee (Agency) & Co. Pvt. Ltd, The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant company on a monthly salary of Rs. 300/- which was subsequently increased to Rs. 500/-. During the period of his employment in the defendant company, the plaintiff used to deposit moneys with the defendant company and he also used to keep in deposit with the defendant company his monthly salaries. The said deposits were used to be made by the plaintiff at the request of his maternal uncle Paritosh Bhattacharjee. It was agreed that the amount of deposit would be payable to the plaintiff on demand. The plaintiff discontinued his services under the defendant company since Baisakh 11, 1362 B.S. corresponding to April 25, 1955, and thereafter joined another company named Bhattacharjee (Tea Blenders) Private Ltd. which was sponsored and incorporated at the instance of the said Paritosh Bhattacharjee and his brother Bankim. The plaintiff became a director of this Company.
(3.) The amounts deposited by the plaintiff with the defendant Company were shown in the annual balance sheets and the books of accounts of the Company under the head "Deposit of Staff". The defendant company by its letter dated July 4, 1960, admitted that a sum of Rupees 15,963.28 was lying with the defendant company to the credit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff resigned from the office of the director of Bhattacharjee (Tea Blenders) Private Ltd. on November 2, 1967, on account of differences with Paritosh Bhattacharjee relating to the management of the said company. As the defendant company failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiff the said amount lying in deposit with the defendant company, the plaintiff by his letter dated November 2, 1967, sent to the defendant company under registered post with acknowledgment due, demanded payment of the said amount, but although the defendant company received the said letter on November 6, 1967, it remained silent. The plaintiff sent a letter of reminder dated January 5, 1968. In reply to this letter, the defendant company by its letter dated January 16, 1968, for the first time denied that any sum was due to the plaintiff by the defendant company and made certain false allegations. The plaintiff through his Advocate's letter dated January 24, 1968, denied the said allegations. This letter was replied to by the defendant company whereby the defendant company reiterated the said false allegations.;