ORDER Abhay M. Naik, J. One Smt. Kamla Rawat was having various deposits with the State Bank of India, Mandla Branch. After her death the present Respondent submitted an application for grant of succession certificate u/s 372 of Indian Succession Act with respect to the deposits of Smt. Kamla Rawat which was registered as Succession Case No. 17/2003 in the Court of Civil Judge. Class-I. Mandla. Learned Trial Judge during the trial of the succession case summoned the information about the deposits of Smt. Kamla Rawat from the Petitioner Bank. The information was provided by the Petitioner Bank in the following manner as contained in Annexure/P-1: (1) Savings A/c No. 01190007634 Gulab Chand Rawat and Kamla Rs. 7749.6 Devi Rawat (2) R.D. No. 0129200850103 Rs. 50,000/- Interest rate 10.25% Dt. 21-5-2001 due on 21-5-2004 (3) R.D. No. 0129200850104 Rs. 50,000/- Interest rate 10.25% Dt. 21-5-2001 due on 21-5-2004 (4) -do- 0120200850106 Rs. 50,000/- -do- (5)-do-0129200850107 Rs. 30,000/- -do- (6) -do- 0129200850108 Rs. 1,25,000/- @ 10.25% Dt. 2-8-2001 due on 2-8-2004 (7) Demand Loan A/c. No. : 01590008501 Balance Amount Rs. 1,23,540.53 paise + Interest No locker exists in the name of deceased. From Annexure/P-1 it is clear that a demand loan was availed by Smt. Kamla Rawat from the Petitioner Bank and a sum of Rs. 123540 paisa 53 + interest was outstanding against her which was so informed vide Annexure/P-1. Shri Maindiretta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Bank during the arguments informed that the said demand loan was availed by Smt. Kamla Rawat against the fixed deposits of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- and a special lien was created against the said fixed deposits. Information about the lien was not given to the learned Trial Judge vide Annexure/P-1. Learned Trial Judge misconstrued Annexure/P-1 and overlooking the nature of account of demand loan and the liability therein added all the seven items described in Annexure/P-1 and passed an order on 31-3-2004 for issuance of succession certificate in favour of the Respondent for such total amounting to Rs. 4,36,290/-. Pursuant thereto a succession certificate was issued in favour of the Respondent which was submitted before the Petitioner Bank. The Bank adjusted the outstanding of the demand loan account from the fixed deposit account of Smt. Kamla Rawat against which the lien was created. Payment of the balance money amounting to Rs. 4,36,290/-. Pursuant thereto a succession certificate was issued in favour of the Respondent which was submitted before the Petitioner Bank. The Bank adjusted the outstanding of the demand loan account from the fixed deposit account of Smt. Kamla Rawat against which the lien was created. Payment of the balance money amounting to Rs. 2,66,273/- was made to the Respondent by the Petitioner Bank in compliance of the succession certificate. Thereafter, the Respondent filed an application u/s 151 of Code of CPC before the learned Trial Judge (which was registered as M.J.C. No. 233/2006) staling that the Petitioner Bank has not complied with the order of succession and has not made the payment of the entire money described in the order passed in the succession case and eventually the succession certificate. The Bank submitted its detailed reply before the learned Trial Judge inter alia contending that Smt. Kamla Rawat was liable to repay a sum of Rs. 1,23,540/- paisa 53 with interest to the Petitioner Bank on account of availing the demand loan and the amount of total outstanding has been adjusted from the fixed deposit account on which special lien was created. Accordingly, the Petitioner Bank expressed its inability to make a total compliance of the succession certificate. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the arguments observed that the information with respect to the deposits of Smt. Kamla Rawat to the tune of Rs. Rs. 4,36,290/- paisa 18 was provided by the Bank itself and accordingly, the succession certificate was issued. Since, the Court had not allowed the Bank to adjust the loan amount of Smt. Kamla Rawat from her fixed deposit, the Bank was bound to make a payment of Rs. 4,36,290/- paisa 18. Further, it has been observed by the learned Trial Court that the recovery of outstandings of Gulab Chand Rawat could not have been made from the fixed deposit accounts of Smt. Kamla Rawat. Moreover, the State Bank of India has not initiated any recovery proceedings against Gulab Chand Rawat. Accordingly, it was directed vide impugned order dated 20-7-2006 that the Bank shall make the payment within a period of one month of the entire amount mentioned in the order of succession and in case of failure, proceedings for breach of the order of the Court would be initiated against the Petitioner Bank. This order contained in Annexure/P-8 has been assailed in the present writ petition. This order contained in Annexure/P-8 has been assailed in the present writ petition. Shri Rajesh Maindiretta, learned Counsel for the Bank contended that the demand loan account of Smt. Kamla Rawat was clearly described in the letter of information contained in Annexure/P-1 issued by the Bank. A sum of Rs. 1,23,540/-paisa 53 + interest was shown to be outstanding in Annexure/P-1. He further submitted that a lien was created in the fixed deposit account on Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-. Since, the loan was not repaid, it has been contended that the Bank in exercise of its rights/powers under special lien, could have and has rightly adjusted the total outstanding from the fixed deposit accounts of Smt. Kamla Rawat in which a special lien was created. Shri Ashish Rawat. learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly made a statement that he does not refute the contentions of Shri Maindiretta advanced on behalf of the Petitioner Bank that Smt. Kamla Rawat had availed a loan against the fixed deposits of Rs. 1,25,000/- and 30,000/- and there was an outstanding of Rs. 1,23,540/- paisa 53 + interest and that the loan was not repaid by Smt. Kamla Rawat. There is no material on record to disbelieve the record of the bank because there is no iota to establish that Smt. Kamla Rawat had not availed the loan during her life time and she did not owe a sum of Rs. 1,23,540/- paisa 53 + interest in her demand loan account. The particulars of the demand loan account were clearly informed by the Petitioner-Bank to the learned Trial Judge vide Annexure/P-1. However, from the order of succession dated 31-3-2004 contained in Annexure/P-2. it is clear that the learned trial Judge has misconstrued the information about the particulars of the deposits furnished by the Petitioner Bank (as contained in Annexure/P-1) and the-demand loan account (MANG RIN KHATA) has been described in the order of succession as 'MANG MAY KHATA'. The same mistake was repeated in the succession certificate contained in Annexure/P-3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has been unable to justify this error. The same mistake was repeated in the succession certificate contained in Annexure/P-3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has been unable to justify this error. The reason assigned by the learned Trial Judge that the appropriation/adjustment was not directed and/or allowed by it is not sustainable in law because the learned Trial Judge has passed the impugned order in ignorance of the Banker's lien in such matters, Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 recognises such right in the following language: 171. General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy brokers. - Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain, as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them: but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect. It has been observed by the learned Trial Judge that no recovers proceedings were initiated with respect to the outstanding in the demand loan account of Smt. Kamla Rawat. Since, the lien was created on the fixed deposit accounts of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- and the Bank was in a position to exercise the right of lien, no recovery proceedings were required to be initiated and the bank in exercise of right of lien was well competent to recover the amount from the said fixed deposit accounts. Banker's right of lien is not barred by law of limitation. Consequently, it does not affect the fixed deposit accounts over which the Petitioner Bank had a lien. No doubt that the right of general lien of the Bank could have been excluded by an express agreement between the Bank and Smt. Kamla Rawat, but no such agreement has been either pleaded or proved which could have excluded the operation of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. Reference may be made in the matter to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Krishna Kishore Kar Vs. United Commercial Bank and Another, . The Banker's lien has been explained by the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of Firm Jaikishen Dass Jinda Ram and Others Vs. Reference may be made in the matter to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Krishna Kishore Kar Vs. United Commercial Bank and Another, . The Banker's lien has been explained by the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court in the case of Firm Jaikishen Dass Jinda Ram and Others Vs. Central Bank of India, as: the right of the bank to appropriate the monies, funds and securities of the customer coming into its possession in the course of their dealings for repayment of the customer's indebtedness. In the present case, counsel for the Bank has contended that there was special lien on the fixed deposit accounts of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-. Although, there is a distinction between general lien and special lien, but in the absence of any proof about special lien this Court is not required to dwell upon this point any more, moreso. in the light of classic statement made by Lord Campbell: Bankers have a general lien on all securities deposited with them as bankers by a customer, unless there be an express contract, or circumstances that show an implied contract, inconsistent with lien. Accordingly, it is held that the Petitioner Bank had a lien on the two fixed deposit accounts of Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- and an appropriation from the said account has been rightly made by the Petitioner Bank in exercise of its right of lien. It is further held that the learned Trial Judge has committed an illegality in granting succession certificate for the entire sum of Rs. 4,36,290/-. In the result, the impugned order is found to be totally illegal and arbitrary and the same is hereby set aside. The succession certificate issued by the learned Trial Judge shall be construed in the aforesaid manner and it is further held that the payment of money payable under the succession certificate has been duly made by the Petitioner Bank to the Respondent. Shri Ashish Rawat, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly slated that he was not aware of the total amount of deposits of Smt. Kamla Rawat with the Petitioner Bank and has paid a stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/- on the amount mentioned in the succession certificate. Shri Ashish Rawat, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly slated that he was not aware of the total amount of deposits of Smt. Kamla Rawat with the Petitioner Bank and has paid a stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/- on the amount mentioned in the succession certificate. He stated that the said mistake crept in because the Bank was required to furnish information about the deposits of Smt. Kamla Rawat and the Bank had committed a mistake in sending information about the liability of loan simultaneously, with the various accounts of Smt. Kamla Rawat including those of fixed deposits. Secondly, the Petitioner Bank also failed to intimate the Court about the lien created on the fixed deposits of Rs. 1,25,000/- and 30,000/-. He further contended that had there been a correct and specific information, the Respondent would not have paid the stamp duty of Rs. 20,000/- on the succession certificate. In view of the outstanding in the demand loan account and further in view of the lien, the Respondent has been made a payment of Rs. 2,66,273/-. In this view of the matter, Respondent was required to make an over-payment of Rs. 4,941/- towards stamp duty which the Respondent is entitled to recover from the Bank. The Respondent is found reasonably correct in his submission that had there been a succession certificate for Rs. 2,66,273/- he would have been required to pay an appropriate stamp duty and would not have been required to make over payment of Rs. 4,941/- towards stamp duty. Considering the same, it is directed that the Petitioner Bank shall pay a sum of Rs. 4,491/- to the Respondent on account of the loss caused to the Respondent due to the Petitioner's mistake. In the result, the petition is allowed in the terms stated hereinabove. No order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed