JUDGMENT

SARKARIA, J.:— This appeal on certificate is directed against a judgment and decree, dated March 3, 1964, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. It arises out of these circumstances.

On September 17, 1945, the respondent opened a Saving Bank Account, being No. 9001, with the Appellants predecessor, the Imperial Bank of India at its Allahabad Branch. She was introduced to the Bank by one Kapil Deo Shukla, who was an employee of the Bank, and admittedly a close neighbour of the respondent and a friend of her husband, Bhagwati Prasad.

2. On November 30, 1948, the respondent made a petition in forma pauperis for the recovery of Rs. 15,547/10/-, together with pendente lite and future interest from the Imperial Bank. This petition was later registered as a regular suit in 1950. The plaintiffs case, as pleaded, was as follows:

3. The plaintiff had, apart from Rs. 1,932/2/- admitted by the defendant Bank, the under-noted amounts which were deposited by her from time to time with the Bank:

Rs. 105 __ deposited on September 17, 1945.

Rs. 4,000 __ deposited on September 17, 1945.

Rs. 8,000 __ deposited on December 7, 1945.

Rs. 100 __ deposited on June 20, 1946.

Rs. 12,205

These amounts were entered in the respondents Pass Book by the employees of the Bank, which had been confirming and ratifying those entries from time of time.

4. Paragraph 3 of the plaint is material. It may be extracted:

"There was a permanent clerk named Kapil Deo Shukla in the employ of the defendant Bank, who exercised much influence on other employees of the Bank and used to work at different counters. The Bank viewed his actions with approval and acted with negligence. The plaintiff as well as other constituents regarded him as an employee and a responsible person of the Bank and letter of instructions to him, while this clerk used to obtain the signature of the officer on the Pass Book as usual. The plaintiff used to believe that the money had been deposited and she was satisfied on perusal of the Pass Book. She had never any occasion for suspicion.

5. In August 1946, the plaintiffs husband felt some suspicion in the Banks affairs. She thereupon sent a notice, dated August 13, 1948, to the defendant-Bank. The Bank replied by letter dated August 14, 1948, in which it accepted the deposit of Rs. 1,932/2/- and denied the deposit and payment of the four items detailed above. The defendant-Bank was responsible for the acts and omissions of its employees which they did during their service, and if Shukla or other employee of the Bank had committed embezzlement and defrauded the plaintiff, the Bank was responsible for making good that loss.

6. The defendant-Bank in its written statement admitted that Kapil Deo Shukla was one of its employees and he used to work at the counter, but not at the Savings Bank counter, where the Savings account of the plaintiff was dealt with. Shukla was no longer in the service of the Bank. The Bank further pleaded that the amount of Rs. 12,205/- as detailed above, was never deposited with it, nor were the alleged deposits constituting this amount ever confirmed or ratified by it. The Bank further stated that only an aggregate amount of Rs. 1,932/- had been deposited by the respondent on the diverse dates, as indicated below:

Rs. 50 __ deposited on September 17, 1945.

Rs. 400 __ deposited on January 29, 1946.

Rs. 432 __ deposited on February 4, 1946.

Rs. 1,000 __ deposited on April 23, 1946.

Rs. 50 __ deposited on July 23, 1946.

7. The Bank further averred that the plaintiff was introduced to the Bank by the said Kapil Deo Shukla, who was her close neighbour and a fast friend of her husband, Bhagwati Prasad, and that if the plaintiff-respondent selected him as her agent or instrument for depositing money in the Bank and he had defrauded her, or if Kapil Deo Shukla acting in collusion with her husband, showed wrong amounts in her Pass Book, the Bank was not liable for any loss that might have accrued to her.

The parties went to trial o