A bank is not under any duty or obligation to make an enquiry if, on the face of it, there is nothing to indicate that the amount belonged to the deceased as a member or head of the joint family.

( 1 ) THE question in this second appeal is whether the Courts below were right in awarding interest by way of damages and costs. The appellant is the State-Bank of India. The respondents father, one Venkata Rama Gopalarao, had a current account with the State Bank and on the date of his death an 19-7-1956, there was about a sum of Rs. 26,0007- and odd to his credit. After his death, the widow as guardian of the minor sons of Rama Gopalarao approached the Bank to invest three-fourths of the money in Government securities siren as the National Savings Certificates etc. , and with respect to the one-fourth since Ramagopalarao left a daughter, she claimed the amount and ultimately obtained a succession certificate and withdrew this amount. In respect of the three-fourths of the amount, the Bank requested the guardian to produce a succession certificate but the guardian instead of doing so filed the suit for a declaration that the amount is part of joint family property and that no succession certificate is necessary and that the respondents have become entitled by survivor-snip under Hindu Law to the suit amount lying in the current account of the bank in the name, of their late father Rama Gopalarao and to direct the bank to invest the same in Government loans as may be desired by the respondents next friend or otherwise to the best advantage of the minor respondents and to grant a decree for Rs. 30244 Np. against the bank as damages towards loss of interest suffered by the respondents.

( 2 ) THE Bank by its written statement averred that it has no concern to investigate or acquaint itself as to from what source or how many of the depositors depositing monies in current accounts with it have got their monies, that the Bank looks only to the depositor in whose, name the current account stands, that in the event of the death of the depositor having current account with the Bank, unless a grant of legal representation is produced from a competent Court by the person alleging himself to be entitled to the amount standing to the credit of the deceased, the Bank will obviously not be in a position to make any payment as the Bank for its own protection has to he satisfied that the money is paid to the proper persons entitled thereto. The Bank further averred that in the absence of any notice in this behalf it is not aware as to whether the amounts deposited by tha deceased Vetikata Rama Gopalarao are his self-acquisitions or his joint family funds, that the nature of those monies is a matter for the adjudication by a competent Court in the presence of all the parties interested therein and that the Bank cannot enter on any such investigation and undertake any such risk. Several other pleas were taken to which it is unnecessary- to refer except to say that it justified its insistence on the production of legal representation. Lastly, the Bank averred thus :"the defendant Bank is only too anxious to release the amount for payment to the persons entitled thereto as the accredited legal representatives of the deceased Venkata Rama Gopala Rao and it is prepared and willing to deposit the amount in this Honourable Court if the Honourable Court so directs for the amount being paid over by the Court to such persons as may be adjudged entitled thereto on their satisfying the legal requirements. The plaintiffs are minors. The plaint refers to the pendency of a petition O. P. No. 59 of 1957 in the District Court for granting a succession certificate in respect of a 1/4th share in the amount to the plaintiffs and their mother and sister; and hence proper provision will have to be made in respect of this in the event of this Honble Court directing deposit of the entire amount in this Court. "the trial Court gave the declaration sought for and directed the Bank to invest the moneys in that account in Government securities as desired by the respondents next friend, The Bank appealed against this latter direction and the first appell