JUDGMENT : P. SREE SUDHA, J. 1. Aggrieved by the Judgment in O.S. No. 331 of 1991 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal on 15.04.1999, the Appellant/Plaintiff filed this Appeal Suit. 2. Central Bank of India, Warangal filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,771.45 ps. with interest @ 16½% per annum with quarterly rests against the defendants. The Trial Court considering the evidence on record and arguments of both sides decreed the suit against defendant Nos. 6 and 7 with costs and dismissed the same against defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff in the suit preferred this appeal and contented that the Judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous. The Trial Court failed to seek that defendant Nos. 1 to 4 acted bonafidely while transacting with defendant Nos. 6 and 7. The onus is on the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to prove such bonafidity. Though defendants have not examined anyone to prove their case, the Trial Court without evidence on record on behalf of the defendants erroneously passed Judgment only against defendant Nos. 6 and 7. When the Demand Draft was endorsed by defendant No. 7 to defendant No. 1-firm and defendant Nos. 1 to 4 intentionally avoided producing any evidence on their behalf was not considered by the Trial Court. The Demand Draft in question is not supported by consideration in the hands of defendant No. 7 and it does not create any right in favour of subsequent endorsee. Forged document is void from the beginning and it does not create any rights in favour of endorsees. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 appropriated the proceeds of the plaintiff bank under a void document and liable to refund the amount to the plaintiff Bank, but the Trial Court failed to appreciate the quasi-contractual liability and wrongly dismissed the suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9. Though defendant No. 1-firm made an endorsement on the back side of the Demand Draft it was not appreciated properly. Therefore, the Appellant-plaintiff requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court to an extent of dismissing the same against defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9 and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the decreetal amount with interest @ 16.5% per annum. 4. Heard arguments on both sides. Therefore, the Appellant-plaintiff requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the Trial Court to an extent of dismissing the same against defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9 and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the decreetal amount with interest @ 16.5% per annum. 4. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the entire evidence on record. 5. The Appellant-plaintiff i.e. Central Bank of India filed suit against M/s. Katkam Narsaiah and others and stated that defendant No. 1 is partnership firm carrying on commission business in the name of M/s. Katkam Narsaiah and represented by one of its partners viz. Katakam Chennaiah-defendant No. 3. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are partners of defendant No. 1-firm. Defendant No. 5 is accomplice of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. Defendant No. 6 is an employee of Central Bank of India, Narsampet Branch and he was dismissed from service. Defendant No. 7 is an accomplice to Defendant No. 6. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are having banking transactions with plaintiff bank since 1985 and they are maintaining C/D Account No. 1673 with the plaintiff. On 22.11.1988, defendant No. 1 tendered a demand draft bearing No. 879437 dated 19.11.1998 for Rs. 65,000/- which was endorsed in favour of Sri K. Sudhakar-defendant No. 7. Defendant No. 7 endorsed in favour of defendant No. 1-firm. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 guaranteed the endorsement on the reverse side of demand draft and they requested to credit the proceeds of the demand draft in their account bearing No. 1673. Plaintiff in a good faith in view of long relationship between them credited the said amount on the same day. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 issued bearer cheque No. 055838 dated 22.11.1988 on the same day for Rs. 65,000/- in favour of N. Ashok-defendant No. 5. He presented the same and encashed the amount on the same day. When the plaintiff verified the accounts, it came to light that defendant submitted a forged demand draft and encashed Rs. 65,000/- immediately they rushed to defendant No. 3 and informed about the forged demand draft submitted to the Bank. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 promised to pay Rs. He presented the same and encashed the amount on the same day. When the plaintiff verified the accounts, it came to light that defendant submitted a forged demand draft and encashed Rs. 65,000/- immediately they rushed to defendant No. 3 and informed about the forged demand draft submitted to the Bank. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 promised to pay Rs. 65,000/- but they failed to pay the same in spite of repeated requests, as such the Bank addressed a letter to defendant No. 1-firm on 24.01.1989 and reply was given by the defendant No. 1-firm on 30.01.1989 though admitted withdrawal of amount sought for certain clarifications. Plaintiff got issued legal notice to the defendant No. 1-firm and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 on 06.02.1990 demanding immediate payment and the said legal notice was acknowledged by the defendants, but reply was given with false averments and they denied withdrawal of Rs. 65,000/-. Plaintiff also stated that one Hari Babu-defendant No. 6 was their employee, but subsequently after conducting departmental enquiry he was removed from service. Plaintiff stated that defendants in collusion with each other and also with active assistance of defendant No. 6 procured blank demand draft from Narsampet Branch and introduced the bank to part with Rs. 65,000/- under a forged document and they reserved their right to file criminal proceedings against all the defendants and also filed suit for recovery of Rs. 1,08,771-45 ps. with interest @ 16.5% per annum. 6. In the written statement filed by the defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 and 9, they stated that defendant No. 2 is no more and further stated that they are dealing with commission business from more than 15 years without any complaint. On 22.11.1988, defendant No. 7 along with defendant No. 6 presented the demand draft and they accepted the same as defendant No. 6 was employee of the plaintiff bank in good faith and paid the amount to defendant No. 7 under acknowledgement after deducting Rs. 50/- towards their commission. Defendant No. 1 had withdrawn the said amount after approval by the plaintiff bank by presenting a separate cheque through defendant No. 5. 50/- towards their commission. Defendant No. 1 had withdrawn the said amount after approval by the plaintiff bank by presenting a separate cheque through defendant No. 5. Later, though the legal notices were sent by the plaintiff, they came to know that defendant No. 6 who is employee of the bank managed to forge certain demand drafts and encashed them fraudulently and an enquiry was ordered against him and he is alone responsible for all the forged demand drafts and its encashment and they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff. Defendant No. 6 was removed from service. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 5, 8 and 9 submitted that they never played any fraud in collusion with defendant Nos. 6 and 7 to procure the demand draft of Narsampet Branch and thus requested the Court to dismiss the suit. 7. Plaintiff Bank examined their Officer in Warangal Branch as PW-1 and he stated that defendant No. 1 is a firm with Account No. 1673. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are partners of defendant No. 1-firm. Defendant No. 2 died and his legal representatives are brought on record. Defendant Nos. 5 and 7 are friends of defendant Nos. 2 to 4. Defendant No. 6 is employee of their bank but he was dismissed for forging the demand drafts in collusion with the other defendants. He stated that on 22.11.1988 when Ex.A1 was presented, they credited the amounts to the account of defendant No. 1-firm in good faith, but after 10 or 15 days when they verified the signature on demand draft, it was not tallied. Then, they brought it to the notice of defendant No. 1 and requested them to reimburse the amounts to the Bank. Though defendant No. 1 through defendant Nos. 2 to 4 orally assured to reimburse the amount, they did not pay the same as such they filed the suit. Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 were marked through him. He stated that on the reverse of Ex.A1, an endorsement of guarantee was made by defendant No. 1-firm. In the cross examination, he stated that he do not know whether defendant No. 6 admitted in the enquiry that he committed many irregularities and issued many fake demand drafts including Ex.A1. He do not know the scribe of Ex.A1. He stated that on the reverse of Ex.A1, an endorsement of guarantee was made by defendant No. 1-firm. In the cross examination, he stated that he do not know whether defendant No. 6 admitted in the enquiry that he committed many irregularities and issued many fake demand drafts including Ex.A1. He do not know the scribe of Ex.A1. He further admitted that defendant No. 1 is a commission merchant and he was discounting the cheques and demand drafts in their branch. Ex.A14 and Ex.A15 are marked through him during the course of cross examination. Ex.A14 is the attendance certificate issued by Central Bank of India which shows that defendant No. 6 attended office on 19.11.1988 and Ex.A15 is the charge sheet filed against him. He further stated that he cannot say who is the second signatory of Ex.A1. 8. PW-2 is the Assistant Manager. He was operating the account in the name of M/s. Katkam Narsaiah-defendant No. 1 firm. Defendant No. 2 presented Ex.A1 through voucher Ex.A2 and they credited the same into his account on the same day and on the same day, he issued cheque in the name of defendant No. 5 under Ex.A5. Exs.A1 and A3 bears his signature. In the cross examination, he stated that merely looking into Ex.A1, he cannot say that it is forged. Ex.A1 bears signatures of two authorized officers of the Bank with their code number. He stated that they paid the amount covered by Ex.A6 to Ex.D5. 9. Plaintiff also examined Bank Manager as PW-3. He stated that on 18.12.1988, they detected missing of one leaf from the DD book and the corresponding counterfoil was also found missing. The missed demand draft was bearing No. 879437 and the said demand draft was encashed from Warangal Branch on 22.11.1988. Ex.A16 is DD Book. Ex.A17 is Day Book dated 18.12.1988 and it shows that the amount of Rs. 65,000/- was not deposited in the bank by any one. Ex.A18 is the entry in day book dated 19.11.1988. They informed about the missing of demand draft to the head office. Ex.A19 is the entry in the security item register. In the cross examination, he stated that he is legal custodian of Ex.A16. Ex.A1 appears to contain the signatures of one Thahar and defendant No. 6. Thahar is their employee and authorized signatory of the draft when Ex.A1 was issued. Ex.A19 is the entry in the security item register. In the cross examination, he stated that he is legal custodian of Ex.A16. Ex.A1 appears to contain the signatures of one Thahar and defendant No. 6. Thahar is their employee and authorized signatory of the draft when Ex.A1 was issued. He stated that defendant No. 6 was suspected that he was behind the fabrication of Ex.A1. He also stated that only one demand draft was issued on 19.11.1988 and its number is 879411. 10. The Trial Court considering the above evidence on record observed that considering the cumulative effect of evidence of PW-s.1 to 3, the amount covered by Ex.A1 was not deposited in the bank, but its proceeds were credited to the account of defendant No. 1-firm. There is no dispute by defendant No. 1-firm regarding the presentation of the cheque with the plaintiff bank for payment. The issue is whether defendant No. 1 committed any bonafidity in parting the amount of Rs. 65,000/- and in presenting Ex.A1 with plaintiff bank. The Trial Court observed PW-2 who could have suspected the genuineness of Ex.A1 and never suspected it and defendant No. 1-firm and its partners i.e. defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are lay persons could not detect said mischief as such defendant No. 1-firm along with defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are not liable for the consequences. Defendant No. 7 endorsed cheque in favour of defendant No. 1-firm and remained ex-parte. Defendant No. 6 was involved in this mischief and manipulated the things as such defendant Nos. 6 and 7 alone are held liable for the said claim. Defendant Nos. 8 and 9 are legal representatives of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 5 is the clerk of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. When complicity of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 is not established, the question of liability of defendant No. 5 does not arise. As defendant No. 2 is not liable, his legal representatives are also not liable. 11. Central bank of India clearly contended that demand draft was presented in their Bank under Ex.A1 with two authorized signatures. The perusal of demand draft clearly shows that there was material altercation in the amount. Though the initial amount mentioned on the demand draft was Rs. 6,500/- it was altered as Rs. 65,000/- but in photographs it was rightly mentioned as Rs. 65,000/- only. The perusal of demand draft clearly shows that there was material altercation in the amount. Though the initial amount mentioned on the demand draft was Rs. 6,500/- it was altered as Rs. 65,000/- but in photographs it was rightly mentioned as Rs. 65,000/- only. It was also endorsed by defendant No. 1 on the reverse side of the demand draft and directed to pay the amounts to one K. Sudhakar. Ex.A2 is the voucher as such the amount was credited to the account of defendant No. 1 but on the same day the said amount was withdrawn by defendant No. 1 under Ex.A3 as such on verification plaintiff issued notice to the defendants on 24.01.1989 under Ex.A4 requesting them to reimburse the said amount, but defendant No. 1 in a reply notice stated that they accepted the demand draft in normal course and paid the amount only in favour the same credited in their account and thus they admitted the receipt of demand draft and payment of the amount. Another notice was issued by the Bank on 06.02.1990 in which they stated that cheque bearing No. 55838 was issued on the same day for an amount of Rs. 65,000/- in favour of M. Ashok and it was encashed by defendant No. 1-firm. After verification of the accounts during their routine work, they came to know that the demand draft was forged and issued legal notice demanding reimbursement of the amount though the defendants admitted the withdrawal of the demand draft amount sought for certain clarifications. Defendant No. 1 issued reply on 16.02.1990 and they stated that without receiving the amount, demand draft shall not be issued. Bank is making false claim from the endorsee of the demand draft. Bank gave another notice on 19.02.1990 rectifying the demand draft number as 879437 instead of 819437 which was wrongly mentioned. They also enclosed the statement of bank account under Ex.A12. Defendant No. 1-firm made an endorsement on the reverse side of Ex.A1. Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are partners of defendant No. 1-firm. When the amount under forged demand draft was credited to the account of defendant No. 1, it was withdrawn on the same day. Though they admitted the said fact in their legal notice, they refused to pay the amount on one or other pretext. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit against the defendants i.e. defendant Nos. When the amount under forged demand draft was credited to the account of defendant No. 1, it was withdrawn on the same day. Though they admitted the said fact in their legal notice, they refused to pay the amount on one or other pretext. Therefore, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit against the defendants i.e. defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9, in fact all the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of Rs. 1,08,771-45 ps. with interest @ 12% per annum. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the order of the Trial Court to an extent of dismissal of the suit in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 5, 8 and 9. 12. In the result, the Appeal Suit is decreed as prayed for and the order of the Trial Court is modified. The suit is decreed against the defendants (as defendant No. 2 is no more, his legal representatives are liable) and they shall pay an amount of Rs. 1,08,771-45 ps. with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization. 13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.