1. The defendant in the suit, the Federal Bank Limited, is the appellant here. The plaintiff claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 54000/-in the Angamali Branch of the defendant Bank on 8 71959. It was a short notice deposit liable to be repaid with interest at 15 days' notice. The plaintiff's case is that when notice for payment of the amount due under (he deposit was made the Bank did not make the payment and therefore the suit was necessitated.

2. The defendant Bank has its registered office at Alwaye which is very near Angamali. The plaintiff who was a resident of Angamali was said to have been having dealings ever since 1952 with the Angamali Branch of the defendant Bank. According to the plaintiff for the deposit of Rs. 54000/- he made in that Branch on 8 71959 a deposit receipt was given to him. Interest upto 3112 1960 is said to have been paid and when on 6 31961 the amount due under the deposit account was demanded, it was not paid even after the expiry of 15 days. Therefore a notice was issued to the defendant Bank on 24-3-1961 and to this notice a reply was given by the defendant Bank denying its liability to pay. The deposit receipt has been issued by the Agent of the Bank. Against that Agent proceedings had been taken by the Bank for misappropriation of amounts due to it and ever since 1961 when the proceedings were so commenced, the Agent is said to have been absconding. The case of the defendant is that no deposit was made by the plaintiff with the Angamali Branch and the fixed deposit receipt was not a genuine and valid receipt issued by the defendant Bank in the ordinary course of business. The Agent of the Bank Sri. A. P. George is said to have colluded with the plaintiff and brought into existence the receipt without receiving any money for the Bank. It is said that since such receipt of money, if any, was not in the ordinary course of business it was not binding on the defendant Bank. The payment of interest is also denied. In the Bank records the counterfoil of the deposit receipt relied on by the plaintiff is seen to be of a deposit of Rs. 500/-in the name of Kumari George, the wife of the Agent. Sri. A. P. George. The issue of notice by the plaintiff to the Bank on 6 31961 for payment of money after 15 days is denied. In short, the case of the defendant is that the plaintiff; has not paid any money to the defendant Bank and even if it has been paid to the Agent the Bank is not liable as such payment was not made in the ordinary course of business of the defendant Bank.

3. The court below found that the plaintiff had come into possession of the deposit receipt, Ext. P9, in due course of the business of the Back and that it was supported by consideration. In Ext. P9 there was the signature of not only the Agent but also of the Cashier and Accountant and the Court found that the signatures of the Cashier and Accountant were forged and to that extent the deposit receipt could be said to be not genuine. It was further found that Ext. P9 was issued by Sri. George in the course of his employment as Agent and was within the scope of his authority. If, in the course of such dealings the agent had committed a fraud in not making the necessary credit and entries in the Bank's book of accounts, it was not for the plaintiff to suffer. The court below held that under such circumstances the defendant would be answerable for holding out to the outside world that the Agent had authority to receive deposits and issue receipts. Consequently the court below decreed the suit.

4. Sri. Velayudhan Nair, learned counsel for the appellant, the Federal Bank Limited, has raised two questions. According to him the plaintiff had not paid any amount to get the deposit receipt and it was the result of collusive action between the plaintiff and Sri. A. P. George. It is also his case that in the face of the forged signatures of the Cashier and Accountant in Ext. P9 receipt, the document is a forged instrument and no relief can b