Ordinary money lending business if a banking business.

This is an appeal against the Judgment and Decree in O.S. No.6 of 1955 on the file of the Sub-Court of Pudukottai, granting a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for recovery of the sum of Rs. 8,566-7-9 with interest and costs. Defendants I and 2 are the appellants.

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of one Sinnakaruppan Chettiar, and the third plaintiff is the grandson of Sinnakaruppan by his son Veerappa. Veerappa died during the lifetime of Sinnakaruppan. They are members of a Hindu undivided family belonging to the Nagarathar Community, and residing at Kilasivalpatti, Ramanathapuram district. Their family vilasam is AR. VR. S. The six defendants in the suit are partners of a firm styled PL. RM. ST. carrying on money-lending business at Dabein in Burma. Sinnakaruppan Chettiar drew a hundi for Rs.5,748-8-0 on the A. VR. RM. firm,Rangoon and sent the hundi to the PL. RM. ST. firm,Dabein with instructions to cash the hundi and credit the proceeds to his Kilasivalpatti AR. VR. S. account. This was in August, 1925. The amount so deposited was to carry interest at Rangoon Nadappu rate. The Hundi was cashed by the PL. RM.ST. firm and the net proceeds, after deducting cost of stamp and commission, of Rs. 5,902-6-0 were credited to the Plaintiff’s family account. A deposit letter dated 31st December, 1925 (Exhibit A- 1) signed by the agent of the PL.RM. ST. firm was sent to the plaintiffs. Sinnakaruppan died in or about December, 1925. On 30th June, 1927, the plaintiffs drew a hundi for Rs. 500 on the PL. SP. firm, Thongua and sent it to the PL. RM. ST. firm Dabein with instruction to cash the hundi and credit the proceeds to their account with the firm. The hundi was cashed on or about 8th August, 1927 and the proceeds of Rs. 503- 11-0 were credited as per directions of the plaintiffs. This was also a deposit carrying interest at the Rangoon two months Thavanai rate. Vaddi chittais and Kanakku nagals (account copies) were sent periodically by the defendants-firm to the plaintiffs (Exhibits A-2 to A-33).

The plaintiffs made a demand for the payment of the two deposit amounts, by issuing a notice through their counsel dated 19th January, 1955 (Exhibit B-1). Defendants 2 to 6 sent a reply through their counsel, Exhibit A-34 dated 21st January, 1955. They pointed out the difficulties in getting remittances from Burma and stated that arrangements should be made for receiving the money at Dabein by sending the deposit letter to that place. The first defendant also sent a reply Exhibit A-36 dated 7th February, 1955, but by that time the plaintiffs had instituted the suit on 4th February, 1955.

The suit was laid for recovery of the amounts due under the two deposits after giving credit to several payments made by the defendants. Defendants 1 to 5 are permanent residents within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sub-Court of Puddukottai.

The 6th defendant was not such a resident and leave to sue him was obtained. The substantial defence to the suit was that the suit was not maintainable in law for the recovery of the amounts at Pudukottai as the deposits were made with a foreign firm at Burma doing business as bankers.

At the trial defendants 3 to 6 submitted to a decree and got the benefits of Madras Act I of 1955. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit but failed. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree against them for the full amount as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

The only point urged in the appeal on behalf of the appellant (defendants 1 and 2) is that the suit is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the PL. RM. ST. firm at Dabein was a banking firm, that the suit amounts were deposits made at a particular place of business of the said banking firm and that having regard to the well-settled law governing a banker’s liability to repay his customer all debts, whether in the shape of current account or deposit for a term or payable on demand only at the particular branch the plaintiffs can o