A. RAMAN, J.

The plaintiff, who lost the case before the lower appellate court, is the appellant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 27, 769.18. The suit was resisted by the defendant and the trial court, namely, the 11th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, after trial, decreed the suit with costs as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal to the First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The First Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by his judgment dated September 14, 1983, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit and hence this second appeal.

It is not necessary for the purpose of the case to set out elaborately the facts of this case. It is admitted case of the parties that the defendant was the authorised appraiser of the plaintiff-bank. During the year 1976, one Mohanlal approached the plaintiff-bank for a loan pledging certain jewels with a view to obtain credit facilities. He pledged jewels on May 6, 1976, July 13, 1976, and July 20, 1976. On those three occasions, it was the defendant who as the appraiser was called by the plaintiff-bank to appraise the jewels and accordingly, the defendant as the appraiser, appraised the jewels and certified that the weight, market rate and the gold content of the jewels were verified by him and found to be correct by him. Exhibits A-3, A-5 and A-7 are the said certificates, so issued by the defendant as an appraiser. When examined the defendant would admit that he has certified under exhibits A-3, A-5 and A-7 to the effect that the weight, market rate and the gold content are correct as stated therein. In the list of jewels given by the borrower, Mohanlal the defendant has signed on July 13, 1976, as seen from exhibit A-1. These three documents, exhibits A-3, A-5 and A-7 have been signed by the defendant as the appraiser and by the borrower Mohanlal in whose presence, the jewels were appraised. It is not in dispute that solely on the basis of the certificates and the valuation so given by the defendant as the appraiser, relating to those three pledges, loans were sanctioned to Mohanlal. It is not only spoken by P.W.-1 but it is also admitted by D.W.-1. The further admitted case is that the jewels so pledged by Mohanlal were spurious jewels and not gold jewels. This was found out by South India Bank. Therefore, the plaintiff got the jewels pledged by Mohanlal examined by Ranganatha Rao, Gowri Jewel, Mart and found out that the jewels pledged by Mohanlal were spurious and were not made of gold. Complaint was therefore, given by the bank against Mohanlal and the defendant. The case was pending on the date of suit. In the meanwhile, Mohanlal was adjudicated as an insolvent in I.P. No. 52 of 1978. Since lending to Mohanlal was done by the plaintiff only on the sole basis of the certificates issued by the defendant, who appraised the jewels for remuneration and who has issued certificates as to its quality and quantity and gold content though knowing fully well that they were spurious jewels the suit has been filed to recover the loss sustained by the plaintiff-bank in advancing the loans to Mohanlal on the strength of the certificates.In the written statement, the defendant contended that the office bearers of the bank were also responsible for the loss or malpractice. Assuming those averments to be true, it is not a defence for the defendant to say that he is not liable. He has admittedly as the appraiser, appraised the jewels and has issued certificates. It is also not in dispute that later on verification by the different appraiser, the jewels which was certified by him to be genuine gold ornaments were found to be fake jewels by the other appraiser. The borrower to whom the money was lent by the bank on the strength of the certificates issued by the defendant was adjudicated as an insolvent. Therefore, to recover the amount, so advanced, to the borrower on the strength of the certificates issued by