JUDGMENT

Dar and Sinha, JJ. - This is an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated October 13, 1941, of the Additional Civil Judge of Jaunpur by which he affirmed a judgment and decree, dated September 3, 1940, of the Additional Munsif of Jaunpur in a suit for recovery of money. The Plaintiffs are the proprietors of the Firm Radha Krishna Gopal Lal which carries on business in the city of Jaunpur. On December 24, 1938, they sent five currency notes of the value of Rs. 100 each to the Currency Officer of the Reserve Bank of India for being cashed and their amount to be remitted to them. These five notes had been cut into two halves and joined together by pasting a paper at the back. The notes had been cut vertically and the dividing line of one note passes through the last digit of one of the numbers of the note, with the result that a larger portion of the last digit goes over to one half of the note and only a small portion of the last digit remains in the other half. The two halves are of unequal size; the larger half contains at the top the number of the note intact and at the bottom it contains the larger portion of the last digit of the number of the note. The lesser half contains the number of the note excepting a fraction of the last digit. This is the piicture of the currency note bearing No. 86262, which has been discussed in the judgments of the Courts below. But other currency notes also are substantially in the same condition. As we have said above, the notes were sent joined by pasting a paper at the back and the joining was inartistically done and leaves an impression that the last digit from one half of the note has been completely scored off. But if disregarding the joining, the two halves were to be placed side by side, it would show that the two halves were really parts of the same note and hear an identical number.

2. The currency officer relying upon the appearance of the note as it presented itself at first sight came to the conclusion that one half of the note could not be identified with the other half and as one half of the note contained the number of the note intact and the other half of the note did not contain the number of the note intact, he was bound in law only to accept one half of the note which bore the number intact and to disregard the other half of the note in which the last digit of the number had been cut. And in this view of the matter he felt himself compelled to allow to the Plaintiffs the amount due on half note only. The Plaintiffs did not accept the position taken up by the Currency Officer that the Plaintiff had submitted a claim with regard to a half note or were entitled to receive half the value of the note, and they declined to accept half the value of the note which was offered to them by the Currency Officer

3. Some further controversy ensued between the Plaintiffs and the Reserve Bank of India with regard to the claim which could not be adjusted amicably and finally the Plaintiffs raised an action in the Court of the Munsif of Jaunpur out of which this appeal has arisen for recovery of a sum of Rs. 500 the value of the currency notes, together with Rs. 37.8 as interest due on the said sum against the Reserve Bank of India. The Munsif of Jaunpur dismissed the claim as barred by Section 28 of the Reserve Bank of India Act (II of 1934), He expressed the view that the notes sent by the Plaintiffs were mutilated notes within the meaning of Rule 2 (e) of the Reserve Bank of India (Note Refund Rules, 1935) and as such Section 28 of the Reserve Bank of India Act (II of 1934) applied to the case and the action of the Plaintiffs was not maintainable.

4. This view of the Munsif was affirmed in appeal by the additional Civil Judge.

5. We have now a second appeal before us by the Plaintiffs in which two questions arise for our consideration. One is whether the currency notes mentioned above can be regarded as mutilated notes within the meaning of Rule 2 (e) of the Reserve Bank of India (