VENKATACHALA GOUNDER Vs. TR SOUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent filed O.S.No.8932 of 1983 for recovery of a sum of Rs.33,750 from the appellants and another (the third defendant). In the course of business transaction the third defendant had given to the appellants a cheque for Rs.25,000 dated 23.9.1980. On the same day since the appellants wanted money urgently they endorsed it in favour of the respondent and received the sum of Rs.25,000 requesting the respondent to present it after some time. Accordingly, the respondent presented the cheque on 9.2.1981. THE cheque was dishonoured. She orally informed them of the dishonour and they sought for time. THEn she issued the suit notice for which there was no response and therefore, went to Court.

(2.) THE appellants admitted the receipt of the cheque from the third defendant and also the endorsement. But they denied that it was dishonoured on 19.2.1981. According to the appellants the respondent did not inform them of the dishonour not did she send them a written notice. THE appellants did not promise payment. THEy in turn issued a notice to the third defendant asking him to repay the amount to the respondent. THEre is no contract to pay interest. THE suit has to be dismissed.

(3.) THE appellant admit that the third defendant gave them the cheque for Rs.25,000 and that they had endorsed it in favour of the respondent. THErefore, there cannot be any dispute with regard to passing of consideration. Having received the amount of Rs.25,000 now the appellants want to evade the liability to pay the respondent the amounts so received. Though the printed judgment does not show that the defendant was examined the records would show the evidence of D.W.1 wherein he has stated that the amount was given only because the respondents trusted them. In the pleadings of the appellants have not raised the ground of absence of notice of dishonour. On the other hand, to the respondent's case that inspite of several oral demands made on the appellants they did not repay, it has been pleaded that they had asked the third defendant to make good the amount. THE learned trial Judge, has referred to this and had held that: