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