K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 1589/93 on the file of the XXXI Addl. City civil Judge at Bangalore. ( 2 ) THE appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the two of the withdrawals shown in the SB Account of the plaintiff maintained with the Bank dated 1-9-1992 for Rs. 24. 900/- and 9-9-1992 for rs. 100/- are not at his command, the payments made on the withdrawal slips are forged and the Bank has acted negligently in allowing the withdrawals. The suit is only for a bare declaration to the above effect. The defendant-Bank has denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed perhaps by way of abundant caution seeking consequential relief of payment of disputed amount of Rs. 25000/ -. The application for amendment came to be dismissed on the ground that the proposed relief is barred by time. The dismissal order is confirmed in C. R. P. No. 297/97. ( 3 ) THE trial Court has found that the payment made on the withdrawal slips at Exs. D10 and D11 are not in the handwriting and signature of the plaintiff. Further, holds that the Bank was negligent in making payments on the basis of Exs. D10 and Dll. But, the suit is dismissed. With pain-staking reading, it could be gathered from the judgment that the suit for bare relief of declaration without a consequential relief appears to be the reason for dismissal of the suit. ( 4 ) THE case is at the stage of admission. The LCRs are secured. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent consented and argued on merits for final disposal. The LCRs are secured. ( 5 ) THE Exs. D-10 and D-ll have not been referred to the handwriting expert. The trial court on the basis of comparison of the signatures has come to the conclusion that the withdrawal slips at Exs. D-10 and D-ll do not pertain to the handwriting and the specimen signatures of the plaintiff. No doubt, the court has to ultimately express its judicial opinion on the disputed handwriting and signatures by comparison with the admitted signatures. The subject of handwriting law is intricate and highly scientific in its approach. D-10 and D-ll do not pertain to the handwriting and the specimen signatures of the plaintiff. No doubt, the court has to ultimately express its judicial opinion on the disputed handwriting and signatures by comparison with the admitted signatures. The subject of handwriting law is intricate and highly scientific in its approach. There are men specially trained and competent to express opinions on the disputed signatures. The Supreme Court in the case of State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali ram, reported in AIR 1979 SC 14 , in para 29 the following observations are made:"although there is no legal bar to the Judge using his own eyes to compare the disputed writing with the admitted writing, even without the aid of the evidence of any handwriting expert, the Judge should, as a matter of prudence and caution, hesitate to base his finding with regard to the identity of a handwriting which forms the sheet-anchor of the prosecution case against a person accused of an offence, solely on comparison made by himself. It is therefore, not advisable that a judge should take upon himself the task of comparing the admitted writing with the disputed one to find out whether the two agree with. each other; and the prudent course is to obtain the opinion and assistance of an expert. "in the instant case, the Court without the aid of experts' opinion has come to the conclusion that Exs. D-10 and D-ll are not in the handwriting and signature of the defendant. ( 6 ) THE finding of the trial Court that the suit for declaration without a consequential relief is not maintainable is bad in law. The bank is a debtor in a legal sense when it receives the deposit amount, the Banker has the legal obligations to pass the cheque of its account holder. If there is any mistake in clearing the unauthorised cheques on account of negligence, the Bank has to reimburse its customer. The amounts in deposit are unaffected, despite, the withdrawal under exs. D-10 and D-11. Therefore, in a situation like this, a bare relief of declaration is sufficient without any consequential relief, if the disputed amount is held to be in the deposit of the account, the constituent at his will can withdraw the amount at any time by drawing necessary cheque. D-10 and D-11. Therefore, in a situation like this, a bare relief of declaration is sufficient without any consequential relief, if the disputed amount is held to be in the deposit of the account, the constituent at his will can withdraw the amount at any time by drawing necessary cheque. The intervention of Court for withdrawal of the amount from the Bank account is not necessary. In that view of the matter, the finding of the trial Court that the suit for bare declaration is not maintainable, is bad in law and set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh disposal. The parties are to be given necessary opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the genuineness or otherwise of Exs. D-10 and D-11. The case to be disposed of within six months from the date of this order in accordance with law. The LCRs to be transmit- ted forthwith. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .