ALEX MATHEW Vs. PHILIP PHILIP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the second defendant in a suit for money instituted by the respondent in which the respondent claimed that the appellant and his father, the first defendant in the suit, be jointly and severally made liable for the amount claimed in the plaint. The Trial Court found that the case pleaded by the plaintiff that there had been borrowings by the first and second defendants, as pleaded in Para.6, 7 and 8 of the plaint for the purpose of the business conducted by the first and second defendants is not true, and that the first defendant bad not borrowed any amounts as pleaded by the respondent. Issues 1 and 3, in the suit, are in these terms:-

(2.) These issues were found against the respondent. However a decree was given to him against the appellant for the plaint amount on the basis of the cheques Exts P2 to P6 that were admittedly issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent. The appellant has "admitted that he issued those cheques in favour of the respondent. We shall later refer to the case of the appellant relating to the circumstances in which those cheques were issued.

(3.) Shortly stated, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the case that the respondent pleaded having been found against by the Trial Court and the finding of the Trial Court in this regard having become final-the respondent has not filed any appeal from the decree the suit should have been dismissed even against the appellant. The respondent, on the other hand, sought to support the decree on the basis of the presumption arising under S.118(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short the Act).