SYNDICATE BANK Vs. THYAL HAMEED, MUSLIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from the judgment and the decree in O.S.No.70 of 1996 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Hosdurg. The parties are referred to in this judgment as they appear in the plaint.

(2.) The first respondent in both appeals was the plaintiff. He was doing business in Abudabhi in United Arab Emirates. He maintained an NRE account with the first defendant bank, of which the second defendant was Manager of the Hosdurg branch. The plaintiff used to send money to his account from Abudhabi. He and the third defendant, who is his brother, were staying together in their house at their native place in Hosdurg taluk. On 23.1996 he went to the bank, when he realised that money had been withdrawn from his account unauthrorisedly. The enquiry revealed that on 11.8.1985 Rs.6, 000/-, on 3.1.1986 Rs.15, 000/- on 7.9.1990 Rs.60, 000/- on 26.3.1993 Rs.50, 000/- and on 24.1993 Rs.65, 000/- was withdrawn from his account. The amounts were withdrawn by the third defendant by forging his signature in the cheque leaves of the cheque book he had kept at their house. The officers of the bank failed to verify the genuineness of the signatures in the cheques. There was lack of negligence on their part. On these allegations the first plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs.2, 52, 503.23 paise with interest at 6% per annum. In their joint written statement defendants 1 and 2 denied the allegation that there was negligence on the part of the officers of the bank. They asserted that they had 'prima facie' verified the genuineness of the signatures in the cheques. They denied the allegation that the plaintiff came to know about the withdrawals only on 23.1996. They prayed for dismissal of the suit. In his written statement the third defendant denied that he forged the signatures of the plaintiff in the cheque leaves and withdrew the amounts mentioned in the plaint. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. After the trial the learned Sub Judge entered a finding that there was no evidence to prove that the withdrawals made on 11.8.1985 and 3.1.1986 were made using forged cheques; but there was evidence to prove that the other withdrawals were made by the third defendant using forged cheques. Accordingly, she passed a decree directing all the defendants to pay Rs.2, 18, 147/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realisation. The decree is challenged by the first and second defendants in A.S.No.469 of 1999 and by the third defendant in A.S.No.566 of 2000.

(3.) The following points arise for consideration in these appeals.