Judgment :- V. BAKTHAVATSALU, J. For the The defendants are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the amount. The case of the plaintiff is as follows : The plaintiff was working as an executive officer of Pammal Town Panchayat. The said panchayat has a sub-treasury account payable at State Bank of India, Saidapet Branch at Nandanam. The cheque leaves are issued for operating the account of the panchayat by the treasury officer. Except cheques issued to third parties, the cheques for office administration used to be drawn in favour of self. The executive officer used to sign the cheque as "drawer" with his seal on the reverse, and he will make two endorsements, one for discharge of cheque and another for attesting the signature of the person who used to draw the amount and such person will be the employee of the panchayat. A protection endorsement has to be made in red ink in the nearest rupee. In the course of employment of the plaintiff, as executive officer, a cheque was drawn on the defendants particularly on the second defendant on November 16, 1976, bearing Cheque Book No. 9250, Cheque No. 924952 for a sum of Rs. 19, 962.10. The plaintiff came to know of the drawing of such cheque, when he saw the sub-treasury pass book on December 14, 1976, and was shocked to find the entry for such a large sum. Immediately, the plaintiff filed a complaint and it was registered as Crime No. 29 of 1976 and investigation was made. The plaintiff did not sign the cheque as drawer. The plaintiff was impleaded as third accused in the criminal complaint case. The plaintiff filed application for quashing the proceedings and the same was allowed on July 4, 1979. Thus, the plaintiff has been acquitted in criminal proceedings. The defendants who have honoured the forged cheque created by Poosanam and Manoharan had debited the Panchayat account of Pammal with the amount which was not drawn by the plaintiff on behalf of the Panchayat. Therefore, the Divisional Development Officer ordered recovery of the amount from the salary of the plaintiff in 160 instalments from February, 1977. The plaintiff has been made liable for the amount which is due to the direct consequence of negligence on the part of the defendants. Therefore, the Divisional Development Officer ordered recovery of the amount from the salary of the plaintiff in 160 instalments from February, 1977. The plaintiff has been made liable for the amount which is due to the direct consequence of negligence on the part of the defendants. The defendants were fully aware of the mode of drawing cheques by the plaintiff when operating the account on behalf of the Panchayat. In this case, the cheque was not presented by the employee of the Panchayat and the same was known to the defendants. The cheque had many defects. In spite of the said fact the defendants by their negligence have honoured the cheque without even taking a cursory glance at the cheque, which would have brought to the knowledge of the defendants, the patent unusual features on the face of the cheque. The defendants are not protected where the customer's signature is forged. As a direct consequence of the illegal act of the defendants, the plaintiff is put to loss to the extent of Rs. 19, 962.10. The plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified by the defendants for their negligence. The plaintiff has suffered great damage by reason of the negligence of the defendants. The defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss incurred by him by the negligent conduct of the defendants. The plaintiff is the drawer of the cheque and the defendants owe a duty to protect the drawer when dealing with his cheque. When the plaintiff was not the drawer and the cheque was a forged one, the defendants have no right to debit the Panchayat account. The plaintiff issued notice dated March 14, 1977, demanding payment. The defendants refused to comply with the above notice. The defendants were also agents in law for the plaintiff being his bankers. They were bound to protect the interest of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is filed for recovery of Rs. 19, 962.10.The case of the defendants is as follows : The suit is barred by limitation, as it has not been filed within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. The cheque is a self cheque drawn by the executive officer. On the reverse of the cheque E. Subramaniam, who is an employee of the town panchayat, has signed and his signature was attested by the executive officer. The cheque is a self cheque drawn by the executive officer. On the reverse of the cheque E. Subramaniam, who is an employee of the town panchayat, has signed and his signature was attested by the executive officer. When the cheque in question was presented for payment, the signature of the drawer was verified with the specimen signature given to the bank. Both of them tallied. E. Subramaniam who presented the cheque for payment was asked to sign in the presence of bank officials. The signatures of Subramaniam, attested by the executive officer and the one which was already obtained before making payment, were verified by the officials and both of them tallied. The bank after satisfying that the signature of the drawer and the signature on the reverse of the cheque tallied with the specimen signature given to the bank and also after satisfying that the signature of E. Subramaniam made payment in accordance with the instrument in good faith without negligence. The presentation of the cheque did not afford any ground for disbelieving that the person who presented the cheque is not entitled to receive payment of the amount mentioned therein. In the said circumstances, the payment was made by the defendants in due course. This defendant is neither concerned nor was aware as to what was the practice that is being followed by the plaintiff with regard to cheques issued either to third parties or self. It may or may not be true that two endorsements are used to be made by the drawer one for discharge of the cheque and another for attesting the signature of the person. As far as the bank is concerned, as the instrument is governed by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, they would see if the payee/holder has discharged the cheque by making an endorsement on the reverse of the cheque. It is nowhere stated under any provision of law that the protection entry has to be made in red ink to the nearest rupee. Even if such an entry is not in red ink it would not be open to the bank to refuse payment. Till forgery is proved it should not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that debiting the said amount is illegal. Even if such an entry is not in red ink it would not be open to the bank to refuse payment. Till forgery is proved it should not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to say that debiting the said amount is illegal. What is the procedure that is being followed by the Panchayat was not communicated at any time to the defendants' bank. If the cheque was honoured, the defendant used to make payment in good faith after observing the formalities. It is false to allege that the cheque was defective. There is no negligence on the part of the bank. The allegation that the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified by the defendants on account of their negligence is baseless. The defendants do not admit that the plaintiff suffered any loss on account of the act of this defendant. This defendant was justified in having made the payment in due course and they are entitled to the protection afforded under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plaintiff drew the cheque in his official capacity as the agent of the Pammal Town Panchayat. On the allegation of the plaintiff, the payment of reimbursement by him to the Panchayat would be voluntary and not bound under law and, hence, cannot be received from any third party, much less the defendant.On the above pleadings, the trial court has framed 8 issues. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff with interest at 6 per cent. from the date of the plaint without costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants preferred appeal in A.S. No. 700 of 1984. The appellate court, i.e., 9th Additional judge, City Civil Court by judgment dated September 25, 1985, dismissed the appeal with costs. The appellate court has also directed the plaintiff to remit the entire amount into the Panchayat Board immediately on collection of the same from the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal. The appellate court has also directed the plaintiff to remit the entire amount into the Panchayat Board immediately on collection of the same from the defendants. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have come forward with this second appeal. The following substantial question of law was formulated while admitting this second appeal : "Whether the first appellate court is right in its conclusion that the respondent is entitled to the relief in respect of a cheque, even if it is vouched ?" It is not in dispute that Pammal Panchayat Board was having an account with the second defendant-bank and that the plaintiff was employed as executive officer of the Panchayat during the relevant period. It is not in dispute that on November 16, 1976, the cheque, exhibit A-3, was presented in the bank of the second defendant and that the cheque was passed and amount was drawn and that the bank also debited the above amount in the account of the Panchayat. It is the case of the plaintiff that he did not sign the cheque as drawer and that the cheque was forged and that on the face, the cheque was found to be defective and that the defendants without taking diligent steps acted negligently in passing the cheque. It is also admitted that the development officer of the Panchayat initiated proceedings against the plaintiff for recovery of the amount in instalments. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant bank acted negligently in passing the cheque and that, therefore, he is entitled to the amount from the bank.The defendants contended that the signatures of the plaintiff and E. Subramaniam employee of the Panchayat Board were verified with the specimen signatures and that after observing all formalities, the cheque was passed. Regarding the procedure to be followed in presenting the cheque to the panchayat and passing the same by the bank, both courts have elaborately discussed the above aspect. Admittedly, the cheque was a self-cheque. The cheque will be sent to the bank through the employees of the Panchayat Board and on the reverse of the cheque, endorsement of discharge will be made and in the same endorsement requisition will be made to the bank to hand over the amount to the person named in the endorsement. Admittedly, the cheque was a self-cheque. The cheque will be sent to the bank through the employees of the Panchayat Board and on the reverse of the cheque, endorsement of discharge will be made and in the same endorsement requisition will be made to the bank to hand over the amount to the person named in the endorsement. It is also contended by the plaintiff that signature of the employee will be taken on the reverse of the cheque and that it will be attested by the executive officer and that as per treasury rules, protective endorsement will have to be made in red ink. The appellate court has observed that there is no dispute regarding the above procedure followed by the Panchayat Board in the matter of drawing money from the bank for its own use in the course of administration. The procedure adopted by the bank after presentation of the cheque is also spoken to by D. Ws.-1 and 2. The appellate court has also discussed their evidence and has held that the bank officials will have to scrutinise the cheque with proper care and caution and see whether there is any defect on the face of the cheque. It is also admitted that the cheque book must be in the personal custody of the executive officer. It is seen from the evidence that the plaintiff also gave a complaint to the police under exhibit A-12 stating that the cheque was forged. Though the plaintiff was impleaded as accused in the said case, subsequently, the proceedings were dropped against him and thereafter, as per exhibit A-10 order, the plaintiff was directed to pay the amount in instalments.It is also proved from the evidence that the signature of the plaintiff was forged. Exhibit A-9 is the report of the forensic department. The above report will show that the signature in the cheque was not that of the plaintiff. Apart from that, a handwriting expert was also examined as P.W. - 3. The courts below relying upon exhibit A-9 have held that the signature on the face of the cheque was not written by the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of the courts below on this aspect do not call for any interference. Apart from that, a handwriting expert was also examined as P.W. - 3. The courts below relying upon exhibit A-9 have held that the signature on the face of the cheque was not written by the plaintiff. The concurrent findings of the courts below on this aspect do not call for any interference. But, the appellate court has held that on comparison of the specimen signature with that of the signature found in the cheque, by naked eye, one cannot see any difference between the two and that on a casual comparison of these two signatures, it is not possible to hold that the signatures differ from one another and that one cannot come to a conclusion that the signature in exhibit A-3 is a forged one and that therefore, from the above fact alone it cannot be said that the defendants were negligent in comparing the signatures. In view of the above findings of the courts below, it has to be held that it could not be possible for the officials of the bank to come to a conclusion that the signature is a forged one by comparison of the signatures. However, the courts below relied upon two other clinching circumstances to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants' officials were negligent in passing the cheque. As per the Treasury Rules, whenever a self-cheque is issued by the drawer and whenever the said cheque is presented to the bank for payment by a messenger, there should be an endorsement of discharge of the cheque, duly signed by the drawer and there should also be a request to the bank that a particular person has been authorised to receive the money on behalf of the drawer and that the specimen signature of that messenger should be attested by the drawer himself and that only if such endorsement of discharge and authorisation by the drawer is found on the cheque and signature of the messenger is also attested by the drawer, the bank will then obtain the signature of the messenger in their presence and verify the same with the specimen signature. The appellate court has held that the above procedure is a usual procedure followed in the Government Department. But, in exhibit A-3 endorsement of discharge of the cheque and authorisation to pay the money to the messenger is not found on the reverse of the cheque. The appellate court has held that the above procedure is a usual procedure followed in the Government Department. But, in exhibit A-3 endorsement of discharge of the cheque and authorisation to pay the money to the messenger is not found on the reverse of the cheque. It is significant to note that in other cheques exhibits A-4 and A-5 given by the same Panchayat Board, similar endorsements were found on the reverse of the cheque. Therefore, it is clear that exhibit A-3 does not contain endorsement as found in exhibits A-4 and A-5. If that is so, the absence of such endorsement would raise certain doubt when the cheque was presented in the bank. The officials of the bank failed to detect the above defect in the cheque. It is contended by the bank that there was signature of the plaintiff on the reverse and that E. Subramaniam employee has also signed on the reverse of the cheque. But P.W. - 2, E. Subramaniam has denied his signature in the cheque. The fact that the cheque contains the signature on the reverse alone is not sufficient, since there is no endorsement in exhibit A-3 as found in exhibits A-4 and A-5. As exhibits A-4 and A-5 were also presented by the same Panchayat to the same bank, the officials would have known the usual procedure and practice followed by the Panchayat Board in respect of self-cheque. If the officials of the bank followed the above procedure, they would have easily detected the above defect which is manifestly clear on the face of the record.There is another defect on the face of the cheque, which was not properly noticed by the bank officials. It is admitted that in every cheque, there will be a protective endorsement. If the cheque is for Rs. 291.60, in the protective endorsement, it will be stated in red ink "under Rs. 292". The appellate court has also held that protective endorsement is intended to eliminate the collection of the amount in the cheque. It is also clear from exhibits A-4 and A-5 that the Panchayat Board was in the habit of making such protective endorsement on the cheques, writing the figure a little higher than the cheque amount in red ink. In this case, in exhibit A-3 there is protective endorsement in red ink "under Rs. 20, 000". The cheque is for Rs. 19, 962.10. In this case, in exhibit A-3 there is protective endorsement in red ink "under Rs. 20, 000". The cheque is for Rs. 19, 962.10. Therefore, protective endorsement could have been either for Rs. 19, 963 or Rs. 19, 965. But the protective endorsement is made for Rs. 20, 000. In the above circumstances, it can be reasonably held that the protective endorsement for the higher figure is unusual. But, it is contended by the appellant that the protective endorsement as found in the cheque is sufficient and that there is no statutory requirement that such entry should be made only to the nearest rupee in all cases. I am unable to accept the above contention of the appellants, since the protective endorsement is made for a higher amount than what is expected to be made under such protective endorsement in the cheque. If the defendants' officials verified the above fact, it would have raised some suspicion. The officials of the bank failed to scrutinise the cheque carefully and therefore, the findings of the courts below that the defendants' officials were negligent have to be upheld. It is contended by the appellants that the plaintiff himself was negligent in not keeping the cheque in his custody and that the plaintiff is guilty of negligence. The appellate court has also accepted the said contention and has held that the plaintiff has been negligent and careless and that in that way, the plaintiff can be said to have contributed his negligence. On this aspect, )the decision of the apex court in Bihta Cooperative Development and Cane Marketing Union Ltd. v. Bank of Bihar Ltd. is relied on by the respondent. It is held in the above decision thus : "If the signatures on the cheque or atleast that of one of the joint signatories to the cheque are not or is not genuine, there is no mandate on the bank to pay and the question of any negligence on the part of the customer, such as, leaving the cheque book carelessly so that a third party could easily get hold of it would afford no defence to the bank". As already stated, the defendants' officials failed to note the defect on the face of the cheque and as such, they cannot succeed on the plea that the plaintiff was negligent in not keeping the cheque book in his custody. As already stated, the defendants' officials failed to note the defect on the face of the cheque and as such, they cannot succeed on the plea that the plaintiff was negligent in not keeping the cheque book in his custody. In Morison v. London County and Westminster Bank Ltd. 1914 (3) KB 356, the Court of Appeal has held that a banker who in good faith collects a cheque signed per pro. is not negligent within the meaning of section 82 of the Bills of Exchange Act, merely because he does not inquire into the drawer's authority. It is also held in the above decision that section 82 of the Act does not apply to uncrossed cheques. In Midland Bank Ltd. v. Reckitt 1933 LT 374 (CA), it is held that the defendants had converted the cheques and that as they had noticed that the money did not belong to the solicitor, they were negligent in making no enquiry as to his authority to pay the cheques into his own account and that section 82 did not apply. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit since he is not the owner of the cheque and that only the executive officer has issued the above cheque and that, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim the amount in his individual capacity. The appellate court while discussing the above aspect has held that the executive officer of the panchayat was authorised to act on behalf of the Panchayat and that the plaintiff in his personal capacity was not the owner of the money and that the Panchayat Board is the real owner of the money and that, therefore, it is difficult to hold that the plaintiff in his individual capacity is the customer of the bank. The appellate court has further held that if the plaintiff is not the customer of the bank, then the bank did not owe any duty towards the plaintiff in his individual capacity and that if the bank did not owe any duty, the question of breach of duty or negligence does not arise. The appellate court has further held that if the plaintiff is not the customer of the bank, then the bank did not owe any duty towards the plaintiff in his individual capacity and that if the bank did not owe any duty, the question of breach of duty or negligence does not arise. The appellate court however has also held that at the time of conversion of the cheque into money, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to prove that at the time of conversion, he was entitled to immediate possession and that it is not necessary to establish that he is the true owner of the property alleged to have been converted. The appellate court has also held that though the plaintiff is not the true owner of the said money, he became entitled to possession of the same immediately and that thereafter, he is expected to utilise the said money for the purpose of the Panchayat Board, and that therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to file the suit in his individual capacity and that he is entitled to recover the money with the immediate obligation of paying the amount to the Panchayat Board. On this aspect, certain decisions were relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.In Bute (Marquess) v. Barclays Bank Ltd., it is held thus : "(i) that to enable a plaintiff to sue for conversion it is sufficient if he is entitled to immediate possession of the property converted, but it is not necessary for him to be the true owner of the property; and, as the plaintiff was at the material time entitled to require M., whose employment by the plaintiff had ended, to deliver the warrants to the plaintiff as and when M., received them, the plaintiff was entitled to recover their amount from the defendants with interest at 4 per cent. per annum from the date of the conversion." In Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China 1929 (1) KB 40, it is held that the defendant-bank failed to discharge the burden of showing that they had collected without negligence and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in their claim for conversion. per annum from the date of the conversion." In Lloyds Bank Ltd. v. Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China 1929 (1) KB 40, it is held that the defendant-bank failed to discharge the burden of showing that they had collected without negligence and that, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to succeed in their claim for conversion. It is also further held that the defendant bank were not entitled to rely upon section 131 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act as their title as holders was defective through notice. The plaintiff has to prove that at the time of passing of the cheque by the defendant he had ownership and possession of the goods and immediate right to possess them. The above proposition of law has been laid down by the High Court of Orissa in Paramananda Mohanty v. Bira Behera, 1978 AIR(Orissa) 114. In State of Rajasthan v. Gangadhar, 1967 AIR(Raj) 199, it is held thus: "In an action in detinue the plaintiff must prove that he is entitled to immediate possession and that the defendant has wrongfully detained it. Two valid defences are open to the defendant viz., that he never had possession or that he lost it without any default on his part which must be proved affirmatively." The principles of law laid down in the above decisions, if considered along with the admitted facts in this case, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit is not sustainable. It is significant to note that the plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that due to negligence of the defendant, he sustained loss to the extent of Rs. 19, 962.10 and that he is entitled to be indemnified by the defendants for the defendants' negligence in dealing with the drawer's amount and that the plaintiff has suffered damages by reason of negligence of the defendants and that the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff for the loss incurred by him. It is, thus, seen from the plaint that the plaintiff has claimed the amount by way of damages. As already stated, the plaintiff was directed by his superior authority to reimburse the amount to the Board. The plaintiff has to pay the amount from his salary due to negligence committed by the defendant's officials. It is, thus, seen from the plaint that the plaintiff has claimed the amount by way of damages. As already stated, the plaintiff was directed by his superior authority to reimburse the amount to the Board. The plaintiff has to pay the amount from his salary due to negligence committed by the defendant's officials. That is why, the appellate court has given a direction that the plaintiff after receiving the amount should pay the same to the Panchayat Board. I see no infirmity in the above direction and findings given by the appellate court. For the above reasons, I hold that the contention of the appellant that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit in individual capacity has got to be rejected. The reasons assigned by the appellate court for granting the decree with direction do not call for any interference. I hold that there are no merits in the appeal. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree of the courts below are confirmed. No costs.