( 1 ) THIS is a suit for a declaration that the accounts of the plaintiffs with the defendant No. 1 have been improperly debited with, and the plaintiffs are not liable for, the sum of Rs. 2,34,081/- or any portion thereof and in the alternative for a decree against the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for RS. 2,34,081/- for wrongful conversion or for moneys had and received or for damages.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs had at all material times an account with the defendant No. 1, the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China. The terms and conditions of the account inter alia were that: (a) The defendant No. 1 would collect the cheque in the name of the plaintiff No. 1 or in the names of the plaintiffs jointly and credit the amounts collected to the said account. (b) The defendant No. 1 would up to limits fixed from time to time, advance monies by way of overdraft against approved shares and securities held in the names of the plaintiffs. (c) The account would be operated by the plaintiff No. 1 during his lifetime and after his death by plaintiff No. 2. (d) The defendant No. 1 would charge Interest at the usual rate, and commission.

( 3 ) THE defendant No. I held in deposit various shares and securities belonging to the plaintiffs against the said overdraft account but prior to July 1946 these shares and securities were not considered sufficient for the purpose of allowing an overdraft to the extent of Rs. 70,000/-and the defendant No. 1 declined to allow any overdraft to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- unless other approved securities were deposited. But no other securities were in fact deposited.

( 4 ) ON 1-7-1946 the plaintiff No. 1 drew and cheque No. EP. 867583 on the defendant No. 1 for Rs. 256/- payable to the defendant No. 4 Mr. J. M. Das Gupta or order, and the cheque was sent by post, but the cheque did not reach the said payee. The plaintiff No. 1 was however informed by the defendant No. 1 by letter dated 24-7-1946, that after paying a sum of Rs. 2, 34,081/-, the plaintiff's said account had been overdrawn to the extent of Rs. 2,19,460/5/3.

( 5 ) IT is alleged that the plaintiffs did not draw any cheque for or authorise any payment of Rs. 2,34,0817- but the said cheque for Rs. 2567-was, after despatch,

intercepted and stolen, and the amount and the name of the payee had been fraudulently, materially and obviously on the face of it, altered to Rs. 2,34,081/- with the name of the payee as S. Dass and Co. in place of J. M. Das Gupta, the original payee, and the payment by the defendant No. 1 of the said sum of Rs. 2,34,081/- on the said cheque was unlawful and unauthorised and was negligent and in breach of duties to the plaintiffs and further such payment and the debiting of the said amount against the plaintiffs, amounted to wrongful conversion by the defendant No. 1.

( 6 ) IT is further alleged that the defendant No. 2 (S. Dass and Co.) and the defendant No. 3 (Hindusthan Industrial Bank Ltd. , through whom the collection of the cheque was made), are also liable for wrongful conversion or unlawful appropriation of the proceeds of the cheque.

( 7 ) THE present suit was filed on 16-4-1947. In the written statement filed by the defendant No. 1 on 10-6-1347 it is denied that any limits were at any time fixed on the overdraft and it is stated that the extent of the overdraft was governed by the value placed by this defendant on the shares and securities and by the value placed by the defendant on the plaintiff's credit. It is further denied that this defendant declined to allow overdraft to the extent of Rs. 70,000/-against the securities and shares of the plaintiffs lying with this defendant, and it is pointed out that the plaintiffs being valued customers of high standing, status and credit, the defendant was not in a position to refuse to honour the plaintiffs' cheques merely on the ground that the shares and securities did not come under the category of approved securities even th