RAMBILAS DINARAM SHIVLAL Vs. SHANTADEVI SITARAM AGRAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN both these Second Appeals common questions of law are involved, and therefore, both the appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE plaintiff is a businessman carrying the business of bankers and brokers and the accepts the cheques from businessman and pays them in cash. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 are the businessmen and the defendant no. 3 is a munim to defendant no. 2. On 9/11/1978 the defendant no. 3 brought cheque of Rs. 4510/- issued by the defendant no. 1 in favour of defendant no. 2 and obtained the amount of Rs. 4510/- by endorsing the cheque on its back in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no. 3 used to encash the cheque in this way previously also. This cheque was presented on 09-11-1978, by the plaintiff, but it was returned with an endorsement "refer to drawer. The fact of dishonour of cheque was informed by the plaintiff to the defendant nos. 1 and 2, and on their request it was again presented to the Bank on 24-03-1979, but it was again returned for the sanse reason. The defendant no. 3 allowed the commission of Rs. 2. 30 to the plaintiff on the date of accepting the payment, but the plaintiff did not receive the payment of the said cheque together with interest inspite of notice dated 19-10-1981 served on the defendant; and ultimately the plaintiff was compelled to file suit for recovery of amount of Rs. 6995/ -. with interest and cost, together with notice charges.

(3.) THE defendan combated the claim of the plaintiff by filing written statement. However, the defendant no. l admitted that cheque for rs. 4510/- was issued by him in favour of the defendant no. 2 and it was endorsed by the defendant no. 3 in favour of the plaintiff. He further contended that he never assured the plaintiff regarding payment of the cheque. He contended that there is no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, and therefore, he is not responsible for payment to the plaintiff. The defendant no. 1 further contended that, the cheque was issued against the price of the delivery of some goods from the defendant no. 2, and on failure by the defendant of making delivery of the goods the cheque was not accepted, and it was dishonoured.