Uco Bank & Ors vs Sk. Rahamat Ali
2023 Latest Caselaw 4076 Cal

04.07.2023.
Item no. 15.
Court No. 13
    ap
                              F.A. No. 9 of 2011

                              UCO Bank & Ors.
                                   Versus
                              Sk. Rahamat Ali


                  Mr. Dilip Kumar Kundu,
                  Mr. Arjun Basu.
                                             ...For the Appellants.
                  Mr. Golam Mastafa,
                  Mr. T. Samanto,
                  Mr. Arshad Hussain.
                                            ...For the respondent.

1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and

decree dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the learned

Judge, 7th Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title

Suit No. 495 of 2006.

2. The facts relevant for the instant appeal are that

the respondent Sk. Rahamat Ali filed a suit being Title

Suit No. 495 of 2006 claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-

from the defendant/appellant UCO Bank.

3. The respondent/plaintiff is stated to have opened a

Savings Bank Account with the Debhog Branch of the

appellant at Balasore in Odisha on 9th February, 2001

being Savings Bank Account No. 3189. There was

allegedly a credit balance of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as

revealed from the passbook.

4. Subsequently, the plaintiff/respondent opened an

account with the Barasat Branch of the UCO Bank in

West Bengal being No. 13235. The

respondent/plaintiff requested the Bank to transfer all

sums of money lying in Savings Bank Account No.

3189 at Debhog Brach to Savings Account No. 13235

at Barasat Branch.

5. The respondent/plaintiff produced a passbook

issued by Debhog Branch indicating a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- lying to his credit. The Barasat Branch

of UCO Bank addressed a communication to Debhog

Branch asking for transfer of funds.

6. The Debhog Branch of the Bank replied that there

is a serious discrepancy between the amount stated in

the respondent's passbook and the actual ledger in

Debhog Branch. The Branch had only a sum of

Rs.30,000/- lying to the credit of the

plaintiff/respondent. The plaintiff was informed as

such by letter dated 06.04.2001 by the Barasat

Branch.

7. The UCO Bank refused to pay a sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- to the plaintiff/respondent.

8. The plaintiff filed a writ petition before this Court

that was disposed of by a judgment and order dated

7th September, 2005 being W.P. No. 19265 (W) of 2001.

The Writ Court permitted the plaintiff/respondent to

withdraw a sum of Rs.30,000/- that was lying

deposited with this Court. The plaintiff/respondent

was further directed to file a civil suit since disputed

questions of fact could not be adjudicated under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

9. Accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit.

The Bank also filed a written statement. The plaintiff

examined one witness and the Bank has examined one

witness, who was the Branch Manager of Debhog

Branch in Balasore District of Odisha.

10. The learned Court below found that the evidence

of the Bank's witness unreliable because its sole

witness could not identify the name of the person, who

had made entries in the passbook of the plaintiff.

11. The Court below also found as follows:-

a) The plaintiff/respondent was a rustic citizen.

b) The cash deposit slip produced by the bank was

not believable.

c) The bank witness has deposed childishly since

he could not identify the person who issued the

passbook.

d) The first page of the passbook was admittedly

issued by the bank so the entirety of the

passbook is sacrosanct.

e) The Court could not accept that some pages of

passbook were torn.

f) The person who signed on the pay in slip

Rs.30,000/-, the entry makers in the ledger,

cash receipt book and cash scroll book have not

been produced by the bank, as witnesses.

g) The same person who made entry in the

passbook of Rs. 3 lacs has also made entries in

the bank's ledger for Rs.30,000/-.

h) There is no interpolation in the passbook.

i) There are no computerized entries in the Debhog

Branch passbook as there are in the Barasat

Branch passbook.

j) There are unexplained red marks in the cash

receipt register of the bank.

k) There is a different ink used in the last column

showing entry of Rs.30,000/-.

l) The cash scroll register shows page nos. 38 and

39 missing.

m) The bank's witness has named two different

persons as introducers to the Debhog Branch

account of the plaintiff/respondent.

12. What appears to have been vitally ignored by the

Court below is that some portions of the passbook,

have been torn out, the only entry in the entire

passbook apart from the opening page is an alleged

credit entry of Rs.3,00,000/-.

13. The ledger of the Debhog Branch of the Bank

has been produced in evidence. The ledger indicates

only one entry in the plaintiff's account of a cash

deposit and a balance of Rs.30,000/-.

14. The cash receipt book and the cash transfer

scroll book clearly indicate only an entry of

Rs.30,000/-. The difference in ink in the subject entry

with other entries; non-identification of the issuer

employee of the passbook; non-production of the

person who made the entries in the pay in slip of

Rs.30,000/- the cash receipt and scroll books may at

best indicate minor irregularities on the part of the

appellant bank. They would not prove the case of the

plaintiff/respondent.

15. Bank employees are transferable. It may not be

possible for a manager of the year 2010 to remember

the name of a clerk who made entries in the pay in slip

and ledgers in the year 2001. The trial judge therefore

erred in holding the above omissions against the bank

and accepting the claim of the plaintiff.

16. The trial judge further erred in holding the entire

passbook sacrosanct merely because the first page

was official and valid. An entry in a manually written

passbook is valid only if it matches with the

corresponding ledgers in the bank. There is

overwhelming evidence on the part of the appellant

bank that the plaintiff/respondent only had

Rs.30,000/- in his account at Balasore, that too

deposited in cash. The plaintiff is a trader in prawns.

By no stretch of imagination can it be said that he is

rustic. There is no evidence to indicate that he is

illiterate. Even as on 2001 most rural branches of

many bank had manual entries. It is possible that the

name of the introducer could not recollected by the

bank's witness. There is no evidence on record as to

the source of the funds of the plaintiff.

17. This Court has carefully scrutinized the original

ledger, cash receipt book and cash scroll book of the

Bank. The red pen entries in the cash receipt book and

scroll book are made by supervising officers or

auditors both internal and external. This is normal

banking practice.

18. As already stated hereinabove the above minor

omissions cannot lead to the defense of the bank being

rejected or make the claim of the plaintiff sacrosanct.

19. The ld. Trial Judge appears to have been swayed

away by the observations of the High Court in the

order dated 7th September, 2005 being W.P. No. 19265

(W) of 2001.

20. In the backdrop of the above, this Court is of the

unequivocal view that the plaintiff has not proved his

case in the Court below. The vital evidence produced

by the Bank has not been effectively assessed or taken

into consideration by the Court below. All the ledger

entries of the banks clearly indicate the transactions

inconsistent with a credit entry of Rs.3,00,000/-. A

mistake or some foul play in entry in the passbook

produced by the plaintiff/respondent cannot be ruled

out.

21. The decree impugned in the instant appeal,

therefore, cannot be sustained.

22. There is yet another question that comes to the

mind of this Court. The plaintiff/respondent has

impleaded the General Manager (Operation-II), UCO

Bank, 10, Brabourne Road, Kolkata - 700 001.

Admittedly the Headquarter of UCO Bank is also

located at the same address.

23. Merely because a Head Office of the bank of a

defendant is located in Kolkata, it cannot confer

territorial jurisdiction in respect of a suit on a Court.

No part of the cause of action of the plaintiff as

pleaded in the plaint has occurred within the

territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at

Calcutta. If at all, the competent Court to receive,

entertain and try the suit is the District Court at

Barasat which has territorial jurisdiction. The

decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Morgan

Stanley Mutual Fund Vs. Kartick Das reported in

(1994) 4 SCC 225 is relevant in the facts of the case.

24. This Court does not wish to pronounce upon

territorial jurisdiction as the decree itself has been

found to be erroneous and unsustainable on merits.

25. In view of the above, the impugned judgment

and decree dated 18th March, 2010 passed by the

learned Judge, 7th Court, City Civil Court at Calcutta

in Title Suit No. 495 of 2006 shall stand set aside. Title

Suit No. 495 of 2006 shall stand dismissed.

26. UCO Bank shall be entitled to apply before the

learned Registrar General of this Court to withdraw

the entire decretal amount together with any accrued

interest. If any such application is made in terms of

this decree within a period of ten days from this date,

the learned Registrar General of this Court shall make

payment to an Authorized Officer of the UCO Bank

within a month thereafter.

27. With the aforesaid directions, the instant appeal

is allowed and disposed of.

28. Interim orders, if any, shall stand vacated.

29. All parties are directed to act on a server copy of

this order duly downloaded from the official website of

this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)

(Supratim Bhattacharya, J.)