JUDGMENT : 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendant against the Judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.72 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2009 passed in O.S.No.129 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Mayiladuthurai. 2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law are formulated for consideration in this second appeal: (a) Whether right of Set off can be exercised by a Banker when specific authority is given to adjust towards the loan without prior intimation? (b) Whether Section 171 of the Contract act is applicable to the instant case, if so whether notice has to be given before exercising right of lien when specific authority is given to adjust the amount? 3 .The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for recovery of money. 4. It is found that on two counts the plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendant Bank for recovery of money. As regards the first count pertaining to the chit fund transaction in a sum of Rs.2294/- the trial court has rejected the plaintiff's suit. As against the same, the plaintiff has not preferred any appeal. It is therefore unnecessary to refer the above said case of the plaintiff pertaining to the chit fund transaction. 5. The second count on which the plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendant Bank is that the defendant bank without any authority had adjusted the balance amount in respect of the loan transaction which the plaintiff's father had with the defendant Bank in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and therefore, according to the plaintiff for the due in respect of the said loan, the defendant Bank has no lien/authority over the deposit in the name of the plaintiff lying with the Bank and therefore according to the plaintiff, the defendant Bank has erred in adjusting/appropriating the balance amount of Rs.39,035/- in respect of the loan transaction, which his father had with the Bank from the deposit standing in the name of the plaintiff with the Bank and the same is erroneous in law and hence the defendant Bank is liable to pay the said amount to the plaintiff. 6. 6. Per contra it is the case of the defendant Bank that the above said loan sanctioned by the defendant bank for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is not disbursed to the plaintiff's father alone and on the other hand, the loan transaction pertaining to the same is between the bank and the plaintiff's parents and the plaintiff and accordingly it is the case of the defendant bank that the plaintiff had given a consent letter to the bank to adjust the deposit amount in the name of the plaintiff with the defendant in case of failure to repay the loan amount and accordingly, as per the above said consent letter, the defendant bank had adjusted/appropriated the due remaining to be paid in respect of the loan transaction from the deposit amount and the plaintiff is not entitled to question the same and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. From the letter of requisition given to the bank for sanction of the loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- marked as Ex.B6, it is found that the requisition for the loan amount has been given by the plaintiff's parents and the plaintiff. It could therefore be seen that the plaintiff is also one of the joint borrowers of the loan amount from the defendant bank alongwith his parents. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff that he is not a joint borrower and only his father had borrowed the loan from the defendant bank as such cannot be countenanced. The reliance placed by the plaintiff upon the pass book as regards the loan transaction marked as Ex.A3 would not in any manner help the plaintiff's case. As rightly argued by the defendant's counsel inasmuch as the loan has been incurred by the plaintiff's parents and the plaintiff, in the pass book Ex.A3, the name of the plaintiff's father alone has been entered. This cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiff to contend that only his father had borrowed the loan and he is not in any manner connected with the loan transaction. 8. On the other hand, as seen from Ex.B6, it is found that the plaintiff is also one of the applicants for the loan and accordingly liable to discharge the loan amount as agreed to. 8. On the other hand, as seen from Ex.B6, it is found that the plaintiff is also one of the applicants for the loan and accordingly liable to discharge the loan amount as agreed to. That apart from Ex.B7 letter also given by the plaintiff's parents and the plaintiff, it could be seen that all the three had agreed to discharge the entire the loan amount by paying the monthly installments regularly, besides the monthly interest and the other charges and also agreed that in case of any default on their part, the bank is at liberty to demand and collect the entire outstanding balance and they have also given the authority to the bank that the bank has in its discretion to the right to demand and collect if it so desire the balance outstanding at any time without assigning any reason not withstanding the fact that there is no default in payment of the installments as stipulated. It could therefore be seen that under Ex.B7, full authority had been given to the bank to collect the due loan amount on the default of the debtors and even if there is no default in the payment of installments, the bank has been given the discretion to collect the balance outstanding at any time without assigning any reason. Such being the position, the case of the plaintiff that only his father had borrowed the loan and he has no nexus whatsoever with the above said loan transaction as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. That apart, it is also found that under the lien letter on deposits dated 21.09.2004 marked as Ex.B8, the plaintiff has given his consent to the defendant bank to adjust the sums due for principal and of interest in respect of the above said loan transaction on the due dates of the deposits/ when the interest on the said deposits falls due/ when the bank wishes to call back the credit facility for any reason. In the above said document, the deposit given as a security has been mentioned which is admittedly lying in the name of the plaintiff and the credit facilities with reference to which the above deposit is made as a security are also furnished and one of the credit facilities being the loan granted to the plaintiff's parents and the plaintiff amounting to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.S.L.No.586 of 2004 dated 16.09.2004. Therefore, when the plaintiff has given lien to the bank authorizing the bank to adjust the deposit lying in the name of the plaintiff for any amount due in respect of the loan transaction and when Ex.B8 does not require the defendant bank to issue any prior notice before acting upon the said lien letter, the case of the plaintiff that the action of the bank suo motu without notice to him in adjusting the due in respect of the loan transaction amounting to Rs.39,035/- from his deposit is erroneous cannot be accepted in any manner. 9. As rightly putforth by the defendant's counsel, the bank has been given the authority or the general lien by the plaintiff to adjust the loan due out of the deposit lying in the name of the plaintiff and in such view of the matter, the courts below have erred in holding that the bank cannot adjust/appropriate the said amount from the deposit without prior intimation. The above argument of the defendant's counsel is acceptable. As adverted to earlier, no prior notice is contemplated in Ex.B8, lien/consent letter given by the plaintiff in favour of the bank. It is found that admittedly, the plaintiff and his parents have not repaid the loan amount as promised. It could therefore be seen that they have left the outstanding balance in the loan transaction. This could also be seen from the pass book marked as Ex.A3. However, it is contended by the plaintiff's counsel that the amount of Rs.39,035/- is not reflected in the passbook Ex.A3. But the fact remains that the loan incurred has not been discharged as per the terms of the sanction and accordingly it is found that the amount is due to the bank in respect of the said loan transaction. It is also found as argued by the defendant's counsel that the amount outstanding has been determined taking into account the balance amount not paid including the expenses and cost. It is also found as argued by the defendant's counsel that the amount outstanding has been determined taking into account the balance amount not paid including the expenses and cost. So viewed, it could be seen that inasmuch as there has been outstanding balance of Rs.39,035/- invoking the letter of lien given under Ex.B8, the bank has adjusted/appropriated the said amount from the deposit lying in the name of the defendant bank. 10. It is also found that after adjusting the balance due in respect of the loan transaction and also the guaranteed amount which the bank had promised to the chit company, it is found that the balance amount had been sent to the plaintiff by the bank by way of a pay order. That the bank had paid the balance amount by way of a pay order has not been controverted by the plaintiff. It is found that thereafter, the plaintiff has issued the legal notice to the defendant bank marked as Ex.A1. Even in Ex.A1, the plaintiff has not disputed that the amount outstanding in respect of the loan transaction fixed by the bank @ Rs.39,035/- is incorrect. All that he would state in Ex.A1 is that the plaintiff not being a borrower, the defendant bank is not entitled to adjust the amount lying in the deposit standing in the name of the plaintiff for the loan transaction stated to be availed by his father alone. 11. On the other hand, as adverted supra, it is found that the loan had been incurred not only by the plaintiff's parents but also the plaintiff. Therefore, when under Ex.A1 the plaintiff has not challenged in any manner that the amount outstanding in respect of the loan transaction as determined by the defendant bank is Rs.39,035/- and when the plaintiff has also without demur accepted the balance amount paid by the defendant bank, it could be seen that the plaintiff is not entitle to contend that the amount due in respect of the loan transaction has not been correctly determined by the defendant bank and therefore it is not liable to adjust the said amount from the deposit lying in his name cannot be accepted in any manner. 12. The first appellate court has invoked Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, which provides for general lien of bankers and others. 12. The first appellate court has invoked Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, which provides for general lien of bankers and others. As per the said provision the bankers and others are entitled to retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them in the absence of a contract to the contrary. Invoking the above said section, the first appellate court has held that without prior intimation to the plaintiff, the defendant bank is not entitled to invoke the general lien contemplated under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. 13. According to the defendant's counsel, Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act would not apply to the present case. However, it is found that Section 171 would also apply to the facts of the present case but when the lien letter marked as Ex.B8 does not envisage any prior notice to be issued to the plaintiff before acting upon the same, the courts below have erred in holding that the defendant bank is not authorised to adjust the amount without prior intimation to the plaintiff as regards the same. Therefore it is found that the courts below have erred in mulcting the defendant with the liability/responsibility of paying the amount due in respect of the loan transaction which had been availed of by the plaintiff's parents and the plaintiff. 14. In the light of the above discussions, it is found that the defendant bank would be entitled to have a right of set off on the basis of the specific authority given under Ex.B8 to adjust towards the loan without prior intimation to the plaintiff. Further, it is found that the general lien provided under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and even then in the light of the authority given to the defendant bank under Ex.B8 being a contract to the contrary, no notice is necessary to be given to the plaintiff by the defendant bank before exercising the right of lien to adjust the loan transaction amount out of the deposit lying in the name of the plaintiff. 15. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 16. 15. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are answered in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff. 16. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the defendant has placed reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 1963 Ker 128 (Palai Central Bank Ltd., (In...Vs. Jacob P. Cherian and Others), the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 17.11.2009 in Criminal Revision A.Nos.278 & 279 of 2009 (Harshad Shambhulal Sheth Vs. Sangeeta Rajesh Varma & Another) and the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 16.03.2012 made in W.P.No.19096 of 2011(C. Lalitha Raj Vs. The Assistant General Manager). The learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of his contention, has placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1999(7) SCC 359 (Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay and Others Vs. Sriyanesh Knitters). The principles of law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. 17. In conclusion, the judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside and the suit laid by the plaintiff is dismissed in entirety. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.