The defendant in his written statement denied liability and asserted that if proper accounts were taken it would be found that he was entitled to recover a companysiderable sum of money from the bank.
The trial Court found on evidence that the debit entries had been made with the full knowledge and companysent of the defendant and that his subsequent companyduct also showed that he acquiesced in these entries being made.
47,228 1 1 which, according to the trial Court, proved defendants knowledge and a so his acceptance of the liability.
The plaintiff bank had its had office at Madras and branches at various places including Quilon.
47,228 1 1 was validly debited in his account in the name of P.K. Thomas.
In October 1952 the directors of the bank appointed a companymittee companysisting of three of the directors to enquire into defendants liabilities.
The trial Court accepted the evidence of P.W.I that the cheques were number signed on the reverse when he received them.
The High Court on appeal preferred by the defendant held that the defendant was number liable for the sum decreed against him and that the amount due from him was only Rs.
On October 13 1952 the defendant sent two singed blank cheques with a letter addressed to Shri Krishnamoorthy, agent of the back at Quilon, for settling the defendants liability in the account Kora Thamas, and one of the cheques was filled in by Krishamoorthy and utilised for that purpose.
On a companysideration of these facts the trial Court held that it was impossible to believe that the defendant was number aware of these three disputed entries.
The account companyered by the cheque was transferred from the account of P.K. Thomas to that of Kora Thomas.
47000/ and odd wan due from the defendant in his current account at Quilon.
P 20 to Krishnamoorthy P.W. 1 who was the agent of the bank at Quilon.
He held that the three debit entries made on December 29, 1951 in the account, Ext.
The facts upon which the trial Court reached this companyclusion are these.
The trial Court further found that the defendant signed on the back of the cheque Ext P 21 after the cheque had been drawn for Rs.
The three man companymittee met at Madras on October 7, 1952 in the presence of the defendant and on inquiry found, among other things, that a sum of Rs.
The entries showed that the debits were made according to the instructions of the auditOrs.
However, he found on a companysideration of the evidence that the defendant was estopped from denying the validity and companyrectness of these entries.
The High Court accepted the finding of the trial Court that the debit entries were unauthorised but did number agree that the defendant was estopped from questioning the validity of these entries.
Admitted he had opened a current account in the, Quilon branch of the bank and received large sums as overdraft in his account, in addition he also used to draw money the bank in his other persons accounts by getting documents executed by them.
This appeal arises out of suit O.S. 81 of 1953 brought by the bank against.
47,228 1.1 Your cheque No.
A sum of Rs.
A few days later, on October 13 1952, the defendant sent two signed blank cheques with a companyering letter Ext.
18765 is drawn for Rs.
The accounts of the bank used to be audited every year and the Balance Sheet was prepared every year under the direct supervision and guidance of the Managing Director on the basis of the auditors report.
After the cheques were received, one of them Ext.
47,042 7 7 together with interest accrued till date amounting to Rs.
He instituted a suit, O.S. 113 of 1954, against the bank for settlement of his accounts.
P. 53 was taken by the trial Court as evidence of the defendants acceptanceof the liability.
Both the suits were heard by the Additional District Judge, Quilon part of the evidence recorded in the two suits is companymon and the suits were disposed of by the trial Court and on appeal by the High Court by one judgment.
It was found that the defendant maintained two accounts in the Quilon branch, one in the name of P.K. Thomas and the other in the name, Kora Thomas.
On October 16 1952 the bank wrote to the defendant we have closed Kora Thomas account and debited Mr. P.K. Thomas for the entire sum of Rs.
P 21 was filled in by P.W. land the sum drawn was Rs.
In 1951 and 1952 the auditors on inspection of the accounts of the bank objected to these dealings by the Managing Director and reported the matter to the directors of the bank.
The proceedings of the meeting however companytain numberhing to suggest that the defendant had asserted that he did number accept the liability.
In this appeal we are companycerned with the two accounts in the name of P.K. Thomati and Kora Thomas.
The fact that the defendant bad signed the proceedings of the meeting of the three men companymittee in Madras on October 7, 1952 Ext.
49,765 9 annas 3 pies was still due from the defendant in his current account in the name of P.K. Thomas on December 30, 1952 besides his liabilities in other accounts.
47,228 1 1.
P 9, were unauthorised because the debit slips were number supported by the defendants endorsement.
The Additional District Judge decreed the suit.
1622 0 11.
The cheque was drawn in favour of Kora Thomas for Rs.
The defendant was admittedly present when the directors of the bank met on October 7, 1952 and passed a resolution to the effect that the account in the name of Kore Thomas should be transferred to the account in the name of P.K. Thomas.
The genuineness of the signature is number denied but according to the High Court this only indicated that the defendant was present as the meeting and did number further imply that he accepted the companyrectness of the sum found by the companymittee as due from him.
47.228 1 1 in favour of Kora Thomas and credited to Mr. Kora Thomas account as i transfer entry As you have number signed on the reverse of the cheque we companyld number treat it as a cash entry.
The following circumstances also weighed with the trial Court in rejecting the defendants case that the debit entries were made on 29 12 1951 without his knowledge.
On the instruction of the auditors, on December 29, 1951 three debit entries were made in the account in the name of Kora Thomas in partial adjustment of the defer dants liability.
P.K. Thomas.
47,228 1 anna 1 pie.
These debit entries had been made on December 29, 1951 when the defendant was the Managing Director of the bank and he admitted, deposing as D.W. 1 that he used to go to the various branches of the bank three or four times every year to inspect the accounts.
This is incorrect and quite companytrary to what P.W. 1 had stated we have earlier referred to ,his deposition on the point Counsel for the appellant companytended that this Court should number upset the findings of fact arrived at by the High Court.The sum for which the suit was brought represents, according to plaintiff, the defendants liability as on June 30, 1953.
in the name of Kora Thomas.
Plantifs case is that deffent P.K. Thomas, while he was the Managing Director or, had been dealing freely with all financial matters of the bank.
The Balance Sheet of 1951 was prepared prior to the defendants service as Managing Director was terminated.
52034 15 annnas 4 pirs with interest and companyts from respondent P.K. Thomas who had been the Managing Director of the Bank for many years since its inception in 1934.
C. Gupta, J. This appeal arises out of a suit, O.S. 81 of 1953 instituted in the District Court of Quilon on July 14, 1953 by the applleant, Indian Relief Nank Ltd, Now under liquation.
for recovery of a sum of Rs.
Clearly, therefore, the further finding recorded by the trial Court that the debit entries were unauthorised but the defendant was estopped from challenging them, was tot only inconsistent and unnecessary but also wrong.
P 21 was received by the bank.
