Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by additional plaintiffs 6 and 8. They are the children of one deceased Ismail Hajee Essa Sait who will be referred to hereafter as Essa Sait. Essa Sait had endorsed a bill of exchange drawn by E. T. Adima & Sons on K. A. Shaik Youseph & Company at Singapore. This bill was negotiated through the respondent-bank, the first defendant in the case and along with the documents of title to the goods 15 bundles of coir mats and mattings were sent by the respondent to their Singapore branch. The bill was not accepted by the drawee and on the 5th of December 1941, the Singapore branch of the respondent wrote to the Alleppey branch Ext. E letter stating that the bill "was not accepted on presentation" and that "the drawees promise acceptance on arrival of the steamer." It is the case of the respondent that this information was duly conveyed to Essa Sait by Ext. IX as soon as they received Ext. E, on the 15th of December, 1941. Ext. IX is the press copy of the alleged communication and the delivery of the letter is sought to be proved by the entry, Ext. XII (a), in page 20 of Ext. XII, the letter delivery book of the respondent Bank for the year 1941-42. After the ship reached Singapore, the bill was again presented to the drawee and Ext. F letter dated 9121941 was sent by the Singapore branch to the Alleppey branch of the respondent Bank and the information was conveyed by Ext. G dated 22121941 to Essa Sait. It is said in Ext. F that the draft was again presented for acceptance and that "acceptance was refused and payment promised in the course of 15 days". The drawee, however, made no payment and on the 19th of January, 1942, the respondent debited Essa Sait a sum of Rs. 4,725-9-8. Essa Sait knew about this debit is clear from Exts. T, T (1), U, W, W (1), AE, AF, VIII and X. Essa Sait immediately debited E. T. Adima & Sons with the sum of Rs. 4,725-9-8 and demanded the amount from them. The amount not having been paid, a suit was instituted against them, Ext. X being the copy of the plaint. This suit was dismissed and Ext. B is the copy of the judgment dated 23rd March 1943. 4,725-9-8 and demanded the amount from them. The amount not having been paid, a suit was instituted against them, Ext. X being the copy of the plaint. This suit was dismissed and Ext. B is the copy of the judgment dated 23rd March 1943. Having thus failed to recover the amount from E. T. Adima & Sons, the heirs of Essa Sait, he having died in the meantime, instituted the present suit for recovery of the amount from the respondent bank. It was alleged that there was no proper notice of dishonour, that the documents, Exts. IX and G, relied on would not amount to notices of dishonour, that Ext. IX was not received by Essa Sait, that apart from Ext. G being belated, it did not amount to a notice of dishonour, that Essa Sait should not have been debited with the amount without returning the documents of title to the goods, that an endorsee's liability can arise only on such return, and that in the absence of evidence, as in this case, as to what happened to the goods, the respondent's only right was to claim the amount from the Insurance Company that had insured the goods. On these grounds, it was urged that the debit by the respondent is unjustified. The suit was resisted by the respondent Bank on the ground that the endorsee was liable, that there was proper notice of dishonour in time, that there was no obligation to return the documents of title and the respondent was not obliged to recover under the insurance. It was also stated that Essa Sait had accepted liability, that at any rate he had not contended that there was no proper notice of dishonour, but that on the other hand his conduct clearly showed an implied acceptance of liability, and therefore of a promise to pay the amount, and that the suit filed in the year 1950 was hopelessly barred by limitation. The court below accepted these contentions and dismissed the suit. 2. In the view I take it is unnecessary in this appeal to deal with all the points that have been argued; about there being no real notice of dishonour, the alleged notice being out of time and the question of the suit being barred by limitation. 3. Ext. G letter written by the respondent Bank to Essa Sait did not contain a demand. 3. Ext. G letter written by the respondent Bank to Essa Sait did not contain a demand. But it is clear that Essa Sait knew about the debit entry in his account at least early in February, 1942, the debit having been made on the 19th of January 1942. Ext. T is a letter written by Essa Sait to the respondent on the 7th of February 1942 forwarding Ext. T (1). Ext. T (1) is the letter written to Essa Sait by the drawer of the Bill, E. T. Adima & Sons, and it is seen from Ext. T (1) that the drawer as well as Essa Sait knew about the debit. Even so, all that Essa Sait asked the Bank was for information regarding the "proper course to be pursued for the safety of our interest in circumstances of the kind pointed out by the drawers." The respondent promptly replied Ext. T on the same day, 7 21942, by Ext. U letter in which they said that the debit was in order and that if Essa Sait so desired, they will recall the bill as well as the documents from Singapore subject to the conditions that prevailed there at that time. It was about that time that Singapore was occupied by the Japanese. There was no reply to Ext. U by Essa Sait. This indicates that he had no objection to the debit. The respondent again wrote to Essa Sait on 18 31942 (Ext. W) forwarding another letter, Ext. W (1), received by Essa Sait from the drawees and the request in Ext. W was for direction regarding the proper course to be pursued for the "safety of our interests." Reply, if any, to Ext. W is not produced. But on the 27th of April 1942, the respondent wrote again to Essa Sait (Ext.AE) informing that the respondent had learnt that some goods directed to Malayan Ports have been brought back and landed at Calcutta and asking them details to enable the Bank to identify the goods so that the respondent Bank may write to their Calcutta Branch. The reply to Ext. AE is Ext. AF dated 30th of May 1942, by which Essa Sait furnished information regarding the details of the goods. There does not seem to have been any direct correspondence thereafter, and, at any rate, no such letter is produced. The reply to Ext. AE is Ext. AF dated 30th of May 1942, by which Essa Sait furnished information regarding the details of the goods. There does not seem to have been any direct correspondence thereafter, and, at any rate, no such letter is produced. Soon after, Essa Sait sent a confirmation slip signed to the respondent Bank Ext. I, dated 30th June 1942, and Exts. II to VII are half-yearly confirmation slips that followed Ext. I, all admittedly signed for and on behalf of Essa Sait. In the mantime, the suit evidenced by Ext. X plaint was instituted on 27 21120 M. E. (14101944 A. D.) against E. T. Adima & Sons and the averments in Para.4 of the plaint seem to indicate that Essa Sait proceeded as if the debit made by the Bank was proper. There is one more letter which is relevant and that is Ext. VIII dated 13th of November 1945 written by Essa Sait to the Bank. He asked whether any information was received from the Singapore Branch of the respondent Bank and requested that if no information had been received steps may be taken to realise the amount and further authorised the respondent "to do all that is essential to realise the amount as quickly as possible." 4. On these facts, it is contended by counsel for the respondent-Bank that Essa Sait had made no protest regarding the delay in sending the notice of dishonour. There was also no protest about the debit. On the other hand, it is pointed out, that Essa Sait had accepted the position that he was liable. Essa Sait knew about the debit at least on the 7th February 1942 (Exts. T and T (1). The respondent informed that the debit was proper (Ext. U). There was no reply. Neither from Ext. W nor from Ext. AF, the letter written thereafter by Essa Sait, it seems that Essa Sait had any objection to the debit. It is urged that on the contrary the signing of the confirmation slips, Exts. I to VII, the debiting of E. T. Adima & Sons, the institution of the suit against E. T. Adima & Sons and the letter Ext. VIII are clear indications of acceptance by Essa Sait of his liability. The present suit was instituted only on the 20th of March 1950, more than eight years after the debit was made. I to VII, the debiting of E. T. Adima & Sons, the institution of the suit against E. T. Adima & Sons and the letter Ext. VIII are clear indications of acceptance by Essa Sait of his liability. The present suit was instituted only on the 20th of March 1950, more than eight years after the debit was made. As I said earlier, Essa Sait had died in the interval and the suit is by the legal representatives. In these circumstances, it is urged that the legal representatives should not be permitted to raise a contention regarding the inadequacy of the notice of dishonour or of the delay in sending the same. I am inclined to accept this argument. 5. It is not disputed that a notice of dishonour can be waived. This waiver can be express or implied. An implied waiver can be inferred when the person entitled to notice accepts liability with full knowledge of all relevant facts. The conduct of Essa Sait referred to above clearly indicates an acceptance of liability. "A promise by a person to pay unconditionally the amount due under the instrument after dishonour with full knowledge of the facts is one of the instances of waiver of notice.... A promise may be express or may be implied. Thus if a man acknowledges that a debt is due from him, he should be taken to impliedly promise to pay." (See Bhashyam and Adiga's Negotiable Instruments Act, Tenth Edition, p. 486) That an acknowledgment of a debt would amount to an implied promise to pay has been ruled in Belgaum Bank v. Dando Raghunath (AIR. 1945 Bombay 359). 6. It is, however, contended on behalf of the appellants that there is no acknowledgment of the debit in this case. I am unable to accept this contention. Essa Sait's attitude is clear from his failure to protest about the debit. He did not reply Ext. U letter. On the other hand, he debited E. T. Adima & Sons the amount and later proceeded to file a suit against them as if the debit was properly made. Apart from these, the confirmation slips, Exts. I to VII, were signed by his power of attorney-holder. This is an acknowledgment of liability. Even so, it is urged that the signing of confirmation slips will not conclude the customer and reliance was placed on a number of decisions. Apart from these, the confirmation slips, Exts. I to VII, were signed by his power of attorney-holder. This is an acknowledgment of liability. Even so, it is urged that the signing of confirmation slips will not conclude the customer and reliance was placed on a number of decisions. These decisions are collected by M. L. Tannan in his Book "Banking Law and Practice in India", Eighth Edition, pp. 224 to 226. The question that arose in those cases was as to how far the debits made in pass-books which have been sent to the customer and returned by him without protest, will be conclusive so far as the customer is concerned. The law may briefly be stated to be that until evidence of the nature suggested by the court of appeal in Vagliano's case (1891) 23 Q. B. D. 243, is forthcoming, little reliance can be placed on the pass-book as precluding a customer from disputing debits which would have appeared in the book both when delivered to him and returned by him without objection. Some cases have tended to establish the pass-book as indicative of a stated or settled account. "Not only after a yearly or half-yearly balance had been struck, but on each occasion when it is had out, with the balance, debtor or creditor, pencilled in, and returned by the customer without comment or objection. Unless it can be elevated to that position, it affords little protection to the banker. The essence of an account stated in this connection would seem to be the mutual agreement of the parties as to the correctness of the items in the account and it is the want of agreement which has prejudiced the position of the banker." See Paget's Law of Banking, Sixth Edition, p. 84. It seems, therefore, clear that unless there is evidence to show that the practice or the custom indicated a stated or settled account, the customer is not precluded from questioning the debit entries in pass-books. However, it appears to me that when confirmation slips are sent and signed by the customer, he will be bound by the debits made. No decision dealing specifically with this aspect has been cited before me. However, it appears to me that when confirmation slips are sent and signed by the customer, he will be bound by the debits made. No decision dealing specifically with this aspect has been cited before me. Tannan in his Book on Banking Law and Practice, Eighth Edition, at p. 226 referred to the signing of slips asking for an acknowledgment and commented: "Some banks sent out slips with the statements asking for an acknowledgment for the balance as correct but the customers cannot be compelled to sign them." The confirmation slips, Exts. I to VII, having been signed on behalf of Essa Sait by his power of attorney-holder the question arises whether Essa Sait and his heirs are not bound by those statements. I am of the view that the customer is bound and could not be allowed to re-agitate the correctness of the balance as shown in the confirmation slips. This is the view that has been taken by E. R. Davar in his Book "Law an Practice of Banking," Third Edition p. 225. "If, therefore, the banker wants a settled account, the only course open to him is to get a writing from the customer to that effect. This is now generally done by banks, by periodically sending out letters announcing the state of the balance at the close of that period, to which there are annexed blank forms of acknowledgement as to the correctness of the account which the customer has to fill in, sign and return. In America a practice has grown up, under which some bankers do not issue a pass book, but periodically send a statement of account, to which is perforated a certificate of that account as correct, which the customer is requested to sign and return. Where either of these practices are followed, the account would no doubt be taken as settled as between the banker and the customer." 6. In the light of the above, there is a clear acknowledgment of liability by Essa Sait and adopting the rule in Belgaum Bank v. Hando Raghunath (AIR. 1945 Bombay 359), I hold that he had made an implied promise to pay and has thus waived the defects, if any in the notice of dishonour. The debit has, therefore, been properly made. 1945 Bombay 359), I hold that he had made an implied promise to pay and has thus waived the defects, if any in the notice of dishonour. The debit has, therefore, been properly made. Essa Sait could not have maintained an action for money so debited, A fortiori the appellants, his legal heirs, cannot do so. I therefore confirm the decree of the court below and dismiss this appeal with costs. Dismissed.