JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31-10-2002 passed by XII Additional District Judge, Indore in Civil Suit No. 59-A/94 whereby the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed against the Appellant whereby it was declared that the Respondents are having Saving Bank Account bearing A/c No. 1819 with the Appellant Bank. It was also declared that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or any of them are entitled to operate the suit account, FDRs and the locker No. 10 and Appellant was restrained not to put any obstruction in the operation of the locker and the bank account, against which present appeal has been filed. 2. Short facts of the case are that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit on 20-9-1994 against the Appellant and Respondent No. 3 alleging that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are husband and wife and Respondent No. 3 is son of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It was alleged that Appellant is a Nationalized Bank working under the provisions of Banking Companies Act, 1970 having its one of the Branch at RNT Marg, Indore. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 was retired in the year 1985 from the post of Joint Director, Finance and Statistics of State Government. It was alleged that at that time Respondent No. 3 was in the services of Appellant and was posted at Sehore. It was alleged that as per rules in case of depositing the amount in FDR the staff members are entitled for higher rate of interest by half percent. Similarly, there was concession in obtaining the locker by the employees. It was alleged that this facility was available to the employee even if the amount is deposited or locker was operated jointly or severally. It was alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 opened the joint bank account bearing No. 1819 along with Respondent No. 3 as Respondent No. 3 was in the employment of Appellant and also obtained the locker jointly. It was alleged that the retiral benefits which were received by Respondent No. 1 and ornaments of Respondent No. 2 were kept in the Bank in shape of FDRs and also in the locker. It was alleged that specific instructions were given to Appellant that the account shall be operated by either or survivor. It was alleged that the retiral benefits which were received by Respondent No. 1 and ornaments of Respondent No. 2 were kept in the Bank in shape of FDRs and also in the locker. It was alleged that specific instructions were given to Appellant that the account shall be operated by either or survivor. It was alleged that on 14-10-1991 when the Respondent No. 1 tried to withdraw the amount from his SB account and also tried to operate locker, Respondent No. 1 was informed that SB Account and locker has been seized and the Respondent No. 1 was not permitted to operate the same. It was alleged that on 2-11-1991 cheque of Rs. 10,000/- was issued by the Respondent No. 1 and also tried to operate the locker, but he was refused. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 wrote letters on 14-10-1991 and 2-11-1991 to the Appellant and the memorandum was also sent to the head Office of the Appellant on 25-11-1991. It was alleged that the Head Office of the Appellant vide letter dated 24-12-1991 informed the Respondent No. 1 that since the Respondent No. 3 who is son of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has played fraud at Sehore, therefore, Respondent No. 1 cannot be allowed to operate the locker and the bank account as the amount lying in the said account and locker can be the property obtained by playing fraud. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with the M.P. State Consumer Commission, Bhopal, which was disposed of vide order dated 25-6-1994. It was alleged that in the reply which was submitted by the Appellant with the M.P. State Consumer Commission, Bhopal, it was alleged that Respondent No. 3 misappropriated a huge amount from Sehore Branch of Appellant. FIR has been lodged and the Respondent No. 3 has been suspended vide order dated 14-6-91 and in that connection account has been attached and the Respondent No. 1 was not permitted to operate the account as per the instructions of Police. It was alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no right in the property which is lying in the locker and the bank account. It was alleged that Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have no right in the property which is lying in the locker and the bank account. It was further alleged that in the order State Consumer Commission has observed that the question which has arisen in the complaint can be decided only after recording of evidence, therefore, the same can be decided by the Civil Court. It was alleged that since the property, which is subject-matter of suit is self earned property of Respondent, therefore, Appellant has no right to restrain the Respondent No. 1. It was prayed that the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be allowed and the decree be passed accordingly. 3. The suit was contested by the Appellant by filing written statement wherein it was not disputed that the Appellant-bank is having the bank account of .Respondents and also the locker. It was also not disputed that Respondent No. 3 was entitled for concession and higher rate of interest being employ of the Appellant-Bank. It was also not disputed that Respondent No. 3 was free to open joint account. It was alleged that the account was opened by the Respondent No. 3 with the Appellant Bank showing that the money and the articles deposited belongs to Respondent No. 3. It was alleged that since the Respondent No. 3 being employee of Appellant Bank has played fraud, therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been deprived to operate the account. It was alleged that initially the account was in the name of Respondent No. 3 and the name of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were inserted lateron. It was alleged that as per Section 171 of Indian Contract Act since the Appellant is having a lien and the property has been attached by the Special Establishment Police and the Appellant has been instructed not to allow the operation, therefore, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to operate the account. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which present appeal has been filed. 4. To prove the plaint allegations Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed the documents (Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-3). Exh. 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to operate the account. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit, against which present appeal has been filed. 4. To prove the plaint allegations Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed the documents (Exh. P-1 to Exh. P-3). Exh. P-1 is the letter dated 24-12-1991 issued by Inspection and Control Department of the Appellant wherein it was stated that the locker and the account stands in the name of Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 3 has committed fraud at Sehore Branch amounting to several lacs of rupees and the matter is under investigation with police/CBI, therefore, Appellant cannot allow the Respondents to operate the account/locker till final conclusion of the case. Exh. P-2 is the order dated 25-6-1994 passed by M.P. State Consumer Redressal Commission in Original Complaint Case No. 9/93. Exhs. P-3 and P-4 is the copy of the order dated 27-6-2000 passed by Special Court, CBI and III ASJ, Bhopal whereby charge was framed against the Respondent No. 3 for an offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 477-A of Indian Penal Code and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 5. Appellant has filed documents (Exhs. D-1 to D-13). Exh. D-1 is the rear part of the lease agreement, which was executed by the Appellant relating to locker, which contains the details of operation of locker. Exh. D-2 is the statement of account. Exh. D-3 is the account opening form. Apart from this Appellant has examined Vijay Biyani, who was working as Manager with the Appellant-Bank. From the record it appears that the locker was operated by the Commissioner Vimal Kumar Mishra and the inventory was prepared. The receipt dated 12-5-1997 shows that 11 FDRs and NSCs were found in the locker out of which 4 FDRs were given for renewed on that date. Inventory was prepared on 8-5-97, which contains 4 FDRs in the name of Respondents valuing Rs. 1,10,000/-, 2 FDRs of Rs. 33,000/- were in the name of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4 NSCs valuing Rs. 32,500/- were found in the locker. Apart from this NSCs were found valuing Rs. 40,000/- in the name of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Apart from this 46 golden and silver articles were found of which valuation was Rs. 1,64,993/-. 1,10,000/-, 2 FDRs of Rs. 33,000/- were in the name of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 4 NSCs valuing Rs. 32,500/- were found in the locker. Apart from this NSCs were found valuing Rs. 40,000/- in the name of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Apart from this 46 golden and silver articles were found of which valuation was Rs. 1,64,993/-. Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act deals with the lien of the Bank, which reads as under 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. 6. In the matter of Balbir Sound v. Indian Bank reported in 7996 MPLJ 853, wherein a writ was filed seeking direction against Bank to make payment towards FDRs obtained by the Petitioner along with her husband and the payment was refused because of pendency of suit for recovery of amount in respect of which husband of Petitioner stood as surety and the stand of the Bank was that the claim of the Bank is in exercise of right known as Banker's lien, this Court held that Bank was not entitled to claim Banker's Lien as it had abandoned its claim by entering into fresh agreement with individuals other than husband of Petitioner. It was also held that Petitioner was also entitled to amounts represented by fixed deposits along with interest. In the present case Exh. P-1 is the letter dated 24-10-1991 issued by Appellant Bank, whereby Respondent No. 1 was communicated that since R. S. Naik, Respondent No. 3 has committed fraud of lacs of rupees and the matter is under investigation, therefore, Respondent No. 1 cannot be permitted to operate the account. In spite of lapse of 20 years nothing has been shown by the Appellant-Bank that what happened to the criminal case filed against Respondent No. 3. There is nothing on record to show that any suit for recovery has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent No. 3. In spite of lapse of 20 years nothing has been shown by the Appellant-Bank that what happened to the criminal case filed against Respondent No. 3. There is nothing on record to show that any suit for recovery has been filed by the Appellant against Respondent No. 3. It appears that services of Respondent No. 3 has already been terminated because of the alleged fraud, which has taken place long back. Appellant, who has examined the Manager has not stated anything against Respondent No. 3 except that Respondent No. 3 has embezzled more than Rs. 75 lacs. No evidence has been adduced by the Appellant in that regard. Since there is nothing on record that what happened about the alleged embezzlement even after lapse of 20 years and keeping in view the age of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, which must be 82 to 83 years, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in passing the impugned judgment. In view of this, appeal filed by the Appellant has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.