The main legal point established in the judgment is the prevailing of special provisions over general provisions, particularly in the context of executing a cheque by a minor.

(Second Appeal preferred against the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1994 made in A.S.No. 137 of 1994 on the file of the learned District Judge, Salem, reversing the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1993 made in O.S.No. 688 of 1985, on the file of the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge, Salem.)

The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.18,600/= with interest and cost against the defendant contending that (i) the honouring of cheque No.3260 on 19.10.1982 for the sum of Rs.11,900/= was invalid and (ii) the transfer of a sum of Rs.6,800/= on 20.6.1983 by the defendant Bank was without any authority. According to the plaintiff he was a minor at the time of instituting the suit was having a saving account with the defendant bank at Salem Branch in SB A/c.No.646 in the year 1980. The plaintiff subsequently closed his account on 4.1.1984. ON receipt of the statement of accounts, the plaintiff come to know that a sum of Rs.11,900/= has been debited as per cheque No.3260 on 19.10.1982 and the sum of RS.6,700/= was debited to his account by way of transfer on 20.6.1983 by the Bank without any authority. The plaintiff issued a legal notice on 1.2.1984 demanding Rs.6,700/= which has been transferred without any authority and also called upon the defendant bank for a photo copy of the disputed cheque. On a perusal of the photo copy of the cheque furnished by the plaintiff found that the cheque was not issued by him. It s the case of the plaintiff that the alleged cheque dated 19.10.1982 has been issued by one Mr.Suresh Lal, in his handwriting, a partner of M/s.Moolchand Lakshmanlal, who conspired with the partner of the said firm and forged his signature in the cheque. Hence the suit.

3. The defendant filed a written statement stating that the father of the plaintiff Mr.Lakshman Lal was doing banking business in various names with his family members as propertied and partnership concerns. In the business concern M/s. Moolchand Rameshlal, the next friend of minor plaintiff, and Lakshmanlal's younger brother were partners. The minor plaintiff's account was opened on 3.6.1980 and he has been operating the account in his own name by issuing cheques and the same were going on smoothly till October 1982. The family members of Lakshmanlal incurred loss during October-November 1982 and they have left the residence in Salem. Several cases were filed against the family members of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff, Lakshmanlal was adjudged as insolvent by this court on his own petition in O.P.N.34/83.

4. The defendants in their usual course of business as on earlier occasions received the cheque and made the payment and there was nothing for the defendant to doubt the bonafide of the cheque. The allegation of forgery of cheque by one Mr.Sureshlal is denied. Further, the Manager of the defendant bank was residing in the first floor rental premises of Lakshmanlal, the father of the plaintiff. Advance of Rs.1,200/= being 32 months rent was paid by the bank to Mr.Lakshmanlal. The Manager of the defendant Bank had to vacate the premises of Lakshmanlal as creditors were invading the premises for recovery of their dues from Mr.Lakhmanlal. The sum of Rs.5,500/= which was due from M/s.Moolchand Rameshlal, the partnership firm of the undivided family, and the sum of Rs.1200/= being the rental deposit was adjusted in the plaintiff account on the instruction given by Mr.Lakshmanlal. As the plaintiff never used to come to the Bank and was keeping quiet, there was no occasion to suspect the advise of adjustment made in the plaintiff's account or honouring the cheque in favour of one another firm of the undivided family. Thus, he is estopped from questioning the act of the defendant.

5. Before the trial court, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1. His father was examined as P.W.2 and Exs A.1 to A.9 were marked. On the side of the defendant-Bank, the then Assistant Manger of S