A banker is liable to his customer for any loss suffered by the customer as a result of the banker's negligence in paying a forged cheque.

RAMASWAMI J.

The suit for ordering the defendant, the Hyderabad State Bank Ltd., forthwith to release and deliver over to the plaintiff Abbu Chettiar the goods, viz., 4, 050 bags of Gingelly oil seeds described in the plaint schedule, and for damages of Rs. 1, 800 and for an interim order directing the defendant to deliver over to the plaintiff the said goods and for costs

The case for the plaintiff is as follows : He is a merchant carrying on business in gingelly, castor and groundnut oil as manufactured and wholesale dealer and distributor with head office at No. 81 Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Madras, and branches all over the City. The defendant, the Hyderabad State Bank Ltd., with its head office in Hyderabad State, has its branch office at Linghi Chetty Street, George Town, Madras. The plaintiff had dealings with the defendant bank on a produce loan account. On the forenoon of 23rd December the plaintiff sent his clerk, Rukmangadan, P.W. 4, with cash of Rs. 2, 000 to pay it into the bank and settle the produce loan account in which according to the plaintiff the balance due was Rs. 1, 255-14-6 plus interest and get a release of the goods and for which purpose take the key of the godown from the bank. On this Rukmangadan going to the bank and tendering the amount due as per instructions of Abbu Chettiar and asking back for the key he was informed by the bank clerk, Ramanathan, (D.W. 1), that what was due was Rs. 16, 000, apart from interest and not the sum tendered. Rukmangadan says that he was taken aback and asked for information, and found out that a bearer cheque Ms/C. No. 007215 for Rs. 15, 000, drawn on self and signed by Abbu Chettiar had been cashed that morning at about 10.10 a.m. by a person describing himself as T. Annamalai Chettiar, 81 Perambur Barracks Road, Vepery, Madras, and who had endorsed his name and address on the back of the cheque. Therefore this Rukmangadan phoned up his master who was then performing annual ceremony in his house. Abbu Chettiar accomplished by others ran to the bank, verified this information, looked into the cheque mentioned above and protested that his signature had been forged and that he had not sent any Annamalai Chettiar to cash any cheque. This matter was taken promptly to the notice of the North Beach Police Station by the bank through the accountant Bijoor and by Abbu Chettiar. This Abbu Chettiar gave a complaint by 11.30 a.m. and the North Beach Police Station registered it as Crime No. 794/52 under section 380 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code in which this Abbu Chettiar has stated that his signature had been forged and a sum of Rs. 15, 000 had been drawn from the Hyderabad State Bank without his knowledge and that on checking the cheque book it was found that five leaves, viz., Nos. 007212 to 007216 were missing. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Mr. Abdul Wahab, examined as P.W. 2 investigated this complaint and came to the conclusion that the work must be inside job, viz., of some one in the household of Abbu Chettiar or closely connected with one such person having access to the cheque book normally kept inside an iron safe outside business hours and in the office room during the business hours and a notice to the bank asking them to make good the sum of Rs. 15, 000 and on the refusal of the bank has filed this suit for the reliefs mentioned above, because the banks has refused to release the goods on the foot that they properly honoured the cheque of Abbu ChettiarThe case for the bank is there-fold, viz., that the signature of the plaintiff as drawer of the bearer cheque in question is not a forgery and that during the paranoid of the plaintiff's account with defendant bank the bank has come to know that the plaintiff used to sign blank cheque and leave the same with his office for the purpose of business emergencies and that when the plaintiff turned up at the bank immediately after receiving the phone message and examined the cheque in question did not den