Honble PAL, J.—Leave granted.

(2). This appeal raises the issue whether a fixed deposit jointly owned with ah "either or survivor" clause can be pledged by one of the account holders with the Bank and whether the Bank can adjust the amount of fixed deposit against such pledge, without the authority, knowledge or concurrence of the other account holder.

(3). The appellant and her husband Mam Chand made a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000/- with the respondent bank on 31st May, 1988 for a period of 84 months (i.e. seven years). The fixed deposit would have matured on 31.5.1995 and the amount payable on maturity was Rs. 39,930/-. According to the appellant half of the deposited amount belonged to her and the other half belonged to her husband. On 24th June, 1988, a loan was taken by one Khem Chand in his sole proprietary business of M/s Verma Agro Industries. In 1991 the respondent bank filed a suit against M/s. Verma Agro Industries, Khem Chand and the appellants husband Mam Chand. In the suit it was alleged that M/s Verma Chand Agro Industries and Khem Chand had executed various agreements with regard to the loan and credit facilities made available by the Bank to them. It was also pleaded in the suit that Khem Chand and Mam Chand had secured the amount of the loan by creating a mortgage in respect of immovable property consisting of agricultural land. According to the plaint a total sum of Rs. 2,57,625/- inclusive of interest was payable by M/s Verma Agro Industries and Khem Chand to the respondent Bank. It was further pleaded that Mam Chand and one Nanak Chand had executed guarantee agreements on 24th June, 1988. The Bank prayed for a decree for Rs. 2,57,625/- together with the additional interest and for enforcement of the claim against the hypothecated and the mortgaged properties with a further prayer that if the aforesaid securities were found insufficient for realisation of the amount payable under the decree, it be given the liberty to recover the balance from the persons and other properties of the defendants.

(4). While the suit was pending, a legal notice was given on 28th November, 1992, to the respondent Bank by the appellant and Mam Chand through their advocate, asking for premature encashment of the fixed deposit receipt. It was alleged in that letter that the Bank had kept the original receipt and only issued a photo-copy of the same to Mam Chand and the appellant with the assurance that the amount deposited would be encashable whenever required. It was also stated that both Mam Chand and the appellant were illiterate and had relied upon such representation made by the Bank. It does not appear that the Bank had respondent to this notice. A second notice was sent through an advocate by Mam Chand and the appellant on 26.5.1995, again demanding the amount payable on maturity of the fixed deposit stating that the original FDR receipt had been lost by the appellant and her husband. This letter also does not appear to have been replied to by the respondent Bank.

(5). On 3rd July, 1995 the respondent Bank filed an application in the Court before which the suit was pending seeking to inform the Court that the fixed deposit receipt had been "mortgaged" as security towards the disputed loan and that it had after taking permission of higher officials deposited the amount covered by the fixed deposit in the disputed loan account. Mam Chand filed an objection to the Banks application saying that he had never given any such guarantee and that the fixed deposit receipt had never been mortgaged to the Bank.

(6). The Trial Court allowed the Banks application holding that the amount of fixed deposit account had rightly been adjusted in the account of the disputed loan. Mam Chand challenged this order by way of a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Revisional Court held that the application was not maintainable under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by UP Act No. 31/1978. It was hel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document