The bank is not a trustee of the deposited amount, and the suit must be filed within the limitation period. Non-joinder of a necessary party and the personal liability of the cashier in cases of fraud are crucial legal principles established in this judgment.

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiff Dalip Singh had brought a suit for recovery of Rs.30,000/- against defendants i.e. New Bank of India, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi through its Chairman and Begowal Branch of the said bank, on the assertions that plaintiff had been maintaining a saving bank account No. 902 with defendant bank Branch at Begowal. He had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in that account in the month of January, 1982 and was issued a receipt in that regard but the Cashier Sh. Ram Rattan did not enter the deposit in the ledger account. A criminal case under Sections 409, 467, 420, 468, 471 IPC was registered against Cashier and Manager of the said Branch with Police Station Bholath on 21.4.1982. They were ultimately convicted and sentenced on 25.2.1986.

2. According to the plaintiff, he called upon the defendants to make payment of Rs.20,000/- to him with interest but to no effect as such he has filed the suit for principal amount of Rs.20,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 0.5% per month.

3. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed a written statement contesting the suit raising various legal objections; to wit that, the suit was not within limitation; that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties since Sh. Ram Rattan the then Cashier to whom the plaintiff alleges to have given Rs.20,000/- has not been impleaded as defendant in the suit. On merits defendants denied that the plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs.20,000/- in his saving bank account No. 902 by giving that amount to Sh. Ram Ratan, according to them the alleged cash receipt in possession of plaintiff seems to be forged and fictitious documents. Even otherwise if the plaintiff could establish the fact regarding handing over of Rs.20,000/- to Sh.Ram Rattan then he should recover the amount from him and not from the bank since there is no such entry in the account books of the defendants. As regard the criminal case registered against Sh.Ram Rattan, Cashier and Sh.Bhag Singh, Branch Manager, according to the defendants the same was registered on account of shortage of cash as reflected in the cash book of defendant bank and not for embezzlement of Rs.20,000/- of the plaintiff. Refuting the remaining assertions defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. On pleading of the parties following issues were framed :-

"1. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD

3. Whether the plaintiff has deposited the amount ofRs.20,000 in Bank Account No. 902 with the defendant-Bank as alleged? OPP

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to amount in question from the defendant-Bank along with interest, if any? OPP

5. Relief."

4. The parties were afforded opportunities to lead their respective evidence. During the course of his evidence the plaintiff examined Sh.Bhag Singh as PWl and got his own statement recorded as PW2. He placed on file certificate issued by the Area Office of the defendant bank as Ex.PA. In rebuttal the defendants examined Sh. Daler Singh as DW1 who placed on record Register Ex.Dl and photo copy of the cash book Ex.D2. After hearing arguments the trial Court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants and issue No. 2 in favour of plaintiff and against defendants, issues No. 3 and 4 in favour of plaintiff and against defendants. As regard of finding on issues vide detailed judgment dated 11.4.1994 the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs.30,000/-with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum on principal amount of Rs.20,000/- from the date of filing of the suit till date of decree with future interest at the same rate from the date of decree till actual realization.

5. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge Kapurthala, the defendants had brought an appeal before District Judge, Kapurthala which was accepted vide judgment and decree dated 4.12.19