Sir Walter Phillimore :- This is a case which has given their Lordships much trouble and anxiety- The plaintiff, who is a customer of the defendant bank, sues the bank for refusing to honour his cheque for 45,000 rupees. The bank defends its refusal, saying that the customer had not sufficient funds to his credit; and the question turns upon a disputed payment of 15,000 rupees, averred by the plaintiff, but denied by the bank, to have been paid to his account on the 20th May, 1913. After stating the facts of the case, the chief of which were that the money was alleged to have been paid into the bank by plaintiff"s son and that there was no entry of this payment in the bank books, the Judgment proceeded as follows, after discussing the evidence. Towards the close of his judgment the trial Judge said : "My conclusion is as follows : The onus is on the plaintiff to prove affirmatively that the money was paid in and also to prove the fraud he alleges." As it has been rightly observed in the judgment of the Court of Appeal, the second question ought not to have been proposed. It would be enough for the plaintiff to prove that his son paid the money in. Though he might make suggestions to fortify his case, it was not for him to show how it came about that there was no entry in the bank books. But the trial Judge never reached the 2nd question. He decided upon the first. In so deciding he rightly stated the onus. In Wakelin v. The London and South Western Railway Company L.R., 12 A.C., p. 41. The Earl of Halsbury well observed :- "It is true that the onus of proof may shift from time to time as matter of evidence, but still the question must ultimately arise whether the person who is bound to prove the affirmative of the issue, i.e., in this case the negligent act done, has discharged herself of that burden." This being so, their Lordships agree with the trial Judge that the plaintiff has not discharged the burden which the law imposed on him. After careful examination of the reasons given in the judgment of the Court of Appeal and after listening to a full argument at the bar, their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the Trial Judge ought not to have been disturbed. There the matter must rest. The elaborate criticisms which have been applied to the record shows that several matters were insufficiently probed on either side in the course of the trial. In particular it may be noted that it is most probable that the Government official kept the numbers of the notes which he handed to Motabhoy, plaintiff"s son) and if any of the larger ones had been presented during the year which elapsed before the trial it is possible that their source might have been traced. On the other hand, it is possible that the thief had not yet dared to pass them. Upon the whole their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed; that the decree of the Court of appeal should be reversed, and the decree of the original Court restored; and that the defendant bank should have its costs in the original Court, and in the Court of appeal and of this appeal. Appeal allowed.