Ramaprasada Rao, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tiruchirapalli. The defendants therein are the appellants and the plaintiffs are bankers having their head office at Madras and branches in India and has an overseas branch in Penang as well. The first defendant is a partnership firm carrying on business at Tiruchi and other places including overseas trading at Penang. The name and style of the first defendant’s firm is M|s. VE. A. Firm. This was originally started by VE. A. Annamalai Chettiar and his divided son VE. A. Vairavan Chettiar, the third defendant. On 3rd February., 1959, Annamalai Chettiar died, and thereafter, the third defendant on his behalf and as the trustee and executor of his father, as also the second defendant and the fourth defendant continued the firm as per a fresh deed of partnership dated 13th April, 1960. Defendants 5 and 6 were inducted into the partnership by a deed dated 13th April, 1964, under which the defendants agreed to takeover the assets and liabilities of the quondam partnership. In the course of such partnership dealings, the firm and, therefore, its partners secured from time to time accommodation from the plaintiffs-Bankers and more particularly, from their Penang branch. The account between the first plaintiff and the defendants were settled on 30th July, 1964, and on that date a sum of 1,71,800 Malaysian dollars were due by the defendants to the plaintiffs under what is known as the Miscellaneous Cash Credit account. In connection with the said debt, the defendants with the permission of the Reserve Bank offered Indian securities in the shape of fixed deposits which they deposited with the Tiruchi branch of the Bankers in India. Under Exhibit B-1 dated 3rd June, 1958 the firm at Penang requested the Tiruchi branch of the plaintiffs Bank to take delivery of their fixed deposits receipts for which they gave due discharge receipts even at the time of deposit and hold them as security to all the monies which the defendants firm may owe in respect of the facilities offered to the firm at the Penang branch of the Bankers. The firm undertook to renew the fixed deposits from time to time and agreed to lodge such securities duly discharged, so that such fixed deposits may continuously operate as securities against their debt which they may owe to the Penang branch. They have also expressly authorised the Bankers at Tiruchi to adjust the outstandings of the firm’s account with their Penang branch at any time from and out of the said deposits without any reference to the firm. It may be also pointed out that the accommodation was granted by the firm on condition that all outstandings shall be repaid by the firm on demand from local funds meaning thereby that the debt was repayable in dollars. (Vide: Exhibit A-4 dated 15th August, 1951). It is common ground that the Reserve Bank gave sanction to the plaintiffs to advance monies to the firm in dollars against deposits made by the firm at their Tiruchi branch (Vide: Exhibit A-64 dated 14th June, 1958 and Exhibit A-5 dated 5th August, 1958). Due to certain circumstances the firm was unable to clear their debt due and owing to the Penang branch. Hence, they wrote under Exhibit A-62 dated 25th April, 1966 stating that they were unable to pay either the interest or the overdraft amount due to the Bank and requested the Penang branch to obtain, the Reserve Bank’s permission and arrange for the remittance of the Indian deposits and adjust the outstanding overdraft. Based on this request the Penang branch, requested their head Office to permit them to write to their Tiruchi office for repatriation of the Indian deposits for purposes of settling the account at Penang (Vide: Exhibit A-7 dated 9th May, 1966). Under Exhibit A-8 dated 13th May, 1966, the Central Office gave such permission and the Penang branch, therefore, wrote under Exhibit A-28 dated 20th May, 1966, referring to the request of the firm an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document