JUDGMENT : Subba Rao, J. The facts relevant to the present case lie in a small compass. Tanjore Permanent Bank Ltd., hereinafter called Tanjore Bank, is a scheduled bank doing banking business in the district of Tanjore in the State of Madras. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd., hereinafter called the Overseas Bank, is a bank doing banking business and having branches in different places, including one in Mayuram town. One Arunachalam Pillai was a paddy merchant at Mayuram in the said district and he had a licence as a wholesale supplier of paddy to the rationed area of Mayuram town during the post-war rationing period. He had money transactions with both the Banks. It is not necessary to consider the said transactions he had with the said Banks before December 13, 1947. On December 13, 1947, Arunachalam Pillai borrowed a sum of Rs. 45,000 from Tanjore Bank; and on December 16, 1947, he was indebted to Overseas Bank in a sum of Rs. 27,2001. Both the Banks claimed that the said loans advanced by each of them were key loans on the ground that Arunachalam Pillai pledged to the Banks his bags of paddy stored in his Godown No. 4 at Mayuram. Key loan is a loan in respect of which goods in a particular godown are given as pledge to a bank and the pledgee bank locks up the said godown with its key and retains the same with it till the debt is cleared. Pursuant to the orders issued by the appropriate authority under the Grain Control Order the District Supply Officer, in the presence of the representatives of the two Banks, took possession of the entire stock of paddy found in Godown No. 4, namely, 2097 bags of paddy, sold the same and paid its value to the Government as there were conflicting claims between the two Banks in regard to the said amount. The Government filed OS No. 77 of 1950 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Mayuram, as an interpleader suit, offering to deposit Rs. 17,701 out of the value of the paddy after deducting a sum of about Rs. 6185 towards surcharge due to the Government on the stock of paddy held by Arunachalam Pillai. To that suit both the Banks were made defendants. As in the meanwhile Arunachalam Pillai was adjudged insolvent, the Official Receiver was impleaded as the 3rd defendant. 17,701 out of the value of the paddy after deducting a sum of about Rs. 6185 towards surcharge due to the Government on the stock of paddy held by Arunachalam Pillai. To that suit both the Banks were made defendants. As in the meanwhile Arunachalam Pillai was adjudged insolvent, the Official Receiver was impleaded as the 3rd defendant. In that suit both the Banks filed written-statements claiming the said amount. Overseas Bank filed OS No. 54 of 1951 in the same court claiming the amount withheld by the Government as surcharge. To that suit the State of Madras was impleaded as the 1st defendant and Tanjore Bank as the 2nd defendant. Pending that suit, the Government gave up its claim towards surcharge and deposited a sum of Rs. 5847-0-10 alleged to be the correct amount of surcharge which it had kept back with it. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the loan of Rs. 45,000 advanced by Tanjore Bank to Arunachalam Pillai on December 13, 1947, was not a key loan; and that the amount of Rs. 27,200 due on December 16, 1947, from Arunachalam Pillai to Overseas Bank was under a key loan. Having held so, for some reason which we are not able to appreciate, the learned Subordinate Judge decreed that the sum of Rs. 27.200 mentioned in the plaint should be shared prorata between Tanjore Bank and the Overseas Bank in the ratio of 45000:27200. In the other suit, following the same reasoning, he held that the sum of Rs. 5329-9-10 deposited in court should be apportioned between Overseas Bank and Tanjore Bank in the ratio of 27200:45000. 3. Aggrieved by the decrees of the Subordinate Judge, both the Banks filed appeals in both the suits insofar as they went against them; AS Nos. 512 and 815 of 1952 being appeals against OS No. 77 of 1950, and AS Nos. 581 and 1077 of 1952 being appeals against OS No. 54 of 1951. On November 16, 1956, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court heard the appeals together and disposed of them by a common judgment. The appeals filed by Tanjore Bank were dismissed and those filed by Overseas Bank were allowed. In the result Overseas Bank became exclusively entitled to the entire amount deposited in Court. On November 16, 1956, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court heard the appeals together and disposed of them by a common judgment. The appeals filed by Tanjore Bank were dismissed and those filed by Overseas Bank were allowed. In the result Overseas Bank became exclusively entitled to the entire amount deposited in Court. After obtaining the requisite certificate from the High Court, Tanjore Bank has preferred the above two appeals to this Court. 4. The questions that arise in the appeals are whether the loan of Rs. 4-5,000 advanced by Tanjore Bank to Arunachalam Pillai on December 13, 1947, was a key loan on the charge of the grains stocked in Godown No. 4 and whether the amount due to Overseas Bank was a key loan advanced by it to Arunachalam Pillai on the said paddy stocked in the said godown. Both the courts concurrently found that Tanjore Bank loan was not a key loan but Overseas Bank's was. 5. The well settled practice of this Court is to accept concurrent findings of fact as final, except under exceptional circumstances and that too on permissible grounds. After having heard Mr R. Ganapati Iyer at some length, we did not see any justification for departing from the said practice. Tanjore Bank had filed Exs. B-12, B-14, B-16, B-15, B-10, 8-57, B-17, and B-13 and adduced oral evidence in support of its claim. Overseas Bank filed Exs. B-32, B-35, 8-72 and B-73 and also adduced oral evidence in support of its claim. We were taken by the learned counsel for the appellant through some of the documents. The documents disclosed that both the parties adduced evidence to sustain their respective claims. It was open to the courts to accept one set of evidence and reject the other. Both the courts in the present case, for the reasons given by them, rejected the evidence adduced on the side of Tanjore Bank and accepted the evidence produced on the side of Overseas Bank. On a consideration of the conflicting evidence the Courts held that the said loan advanced by Tanjore Bank was not a key loan and that advanced by Overseas Bank was a key loan. The said finding is a concurrent finding of fact and, therefore, we did not permit the appellant to resurvey the entire evidence over again before us. 6. On a consideration of the conflicting evidence the Courts held that the said loan advanced by Tanjore Bank was not a key loan and that advanced by Overseas Bank was a key loan. The said finding is a concurrent finding of fact and, therefore, we did not permit the appellant to resurvey the entire evidence over again before us. 6. In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs of the contesting respondent in CA No. 73 of 63 and the sole respondent in the other appeal. One hearing fee.