The main legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of a bank for the acts of its agents and the concept of apparent authority.

Gentle, J.

1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs are suing the defendants for a sum of Rs. 5,300, together with interest, which it is alleged was. deposited by the plaintiffs or by those in whose shoes the plaintiffs now stand, with the defendant Bank, upon fixed deposit for a specified period, and at the end of that period, the money was not returned to the plaintiffs. In the written statement, in addition to formal matters such as not admitting the allegations, it is alleged that the one who received the actual deposit was not authorised by the defendants so to do, and was acting outside his authority when he accepted the deposit from the plaintiffs, that under the rules and bye-laws of the defendant Bank the panchayatdars have a discretion to accept or not to accept a deposit of every description before the Bank is bound by the deposit and that the mere receipt by the person who in fact received this money, namely, the secretary, would not constitute a valid deposit and that the panchayatdars did not indicate their acceptance of the deposit. In other words, it is alleged in the written statement that the secretary of the defendants was acting outside the scope of his apparent and obvious authority to the knowledge of the defendants when the money deposited was paid and further that the Bank have not under its rules and bye-laws accepted responsibility for this deposit to the knowledge of the defendants.

2. On behalf of the defendants, no evidence has been called, and at the close of the plaintiffs case, I was asked to adjourn the further trial for the defendants to be able at a future date to call evidence in support of their case. I refused the application, firstly because this case has been notified for some two or three weeks as being in the list for trial and parties should be ready for trial. If of course a witness is ill or is unable to be here, naturally one adjourns a case to enable the evidence of that witness to be called. Secondly the application, made when it was, in my view, had no support or justification for the grant of an adjournment.

3. The facts are as follows : The Catholic Indian Association of Southern India had funds at their disposal which apparently they desired to invest upon fixed deposits at profitable rates of interest. At all relevant times, Mr. Thambi Pillai was the Honorary Secretary of this Association, and it was he who in fact made the deposit, the subject-matter of this suit, as well as other deposits. In all, seven deposits were made by the Association through the gentleman I have mentioned, and the * method in which they were made was this, with the exception of the first one or two. The defendant Bank has its premises at Kilacheri, and again at material times, the secretary and treasurer was Mr. M. Papayya Naidu. That gentleman was frequently in Madras, and when the Catholic Association desired to make a deposit upon fixed deposit with the defendant Bank, the secretary and treasurer of the Bank would call upon Mr. Thambi Pillai. Money would then be handed over in cash to the Banks secretary and treasurer, and he would in return hand over to the Associations representative a fixed deposit receipt. That fixed deposit receipt obviously comes from a book which is Ex. B-1, and Mr. Thambi Pillai, P.W. 1, said in his evidence which I accept, that so far as his recollection goes, the receipt was always a loose receipt. On this particular occasion, namely, 3rd October, 1929, Rs. 5,300 was handed over at the request of the Banks treasurer and secretary, a clerk at the Catholic Associations Office filled up the blanks, it was signed by the Banks treasurer and given in exchange. That was the procedure in certainly five of the seven deposits. In the first two, the deposits were in fact made at Kilacheri by the local Catholic priest who was requested so to do by the authorities in Madras. In respect of all these deposits, interest has been paid by the defendants to the plaintiffs as and whe