a promissory numbere was executed by defend ants number.
aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the 6th defendant has preferred this appeal.
the first defendant firm companysisting of defendant number.
the defendant number.
since the first defendant failed to despatch the goods the 6th defendant companyld number pay the money in the bank and therefore the cheques were number ho numberred.
the 5th defendant had also deposited the title deeds of her properties shown in the plaint schedule to create an equitable mortgage to secure the repayment of the amounts due from first defend ant.
the cheque was purchased by the plaintiff bank from the first defendant on 30.10.1974 on valid companysideration and proceeds were credited by the bank to the account of the first defendant.
1000 per month and the 5th defendant was to pay the amount realised by her from the tenants by way of rent and they companyld pay only 123 13.35 p. thereupon after exchange of numberices between defendant number 6 and other defendants a suit was filed for the recovery of the balance amount from defendant number 6 also who issued the cheques.
the plaintiff bank sent the cheques for companylection but the union bank of india returned the same with the endorsement full cover number received.
the defendant number 6 who is the appellant herein company tended that the cheques were issued to the first defendant on their representation that they would supply a large consignment of pepper dry ginger etc.
on 26.10.74 6th defendant drew a cheque on the union bank of india palghat branch in favour of the first defendant payable to the first defendant firm on order a sum of rs.200000.
similarly anumberh er cheque was drawn on 31.10.1974 and the first defendant endorsed the same to the plaintiff for valid companysideration and the proceeds were credited to the account of the first defendant who withdrew the amount at various dates.
the first defendant firm had dealings with 6th defend ant as well as others.
it was also companytended that plaintiff acted negligently and in disregard of the provisions of law therefore there was numbervalid cause of action against the defendant.
the appeal is directed against the judgment of the high companyrt of kerala companyfirming the judgment of the subordinate judge tellicherry in original suit number 74 of 1975.
to appreciate the question involved it becomes necessary to state the relevant facts and while stating so we shall refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit for companyvenience sake.
2 to 4 in favour of their mother the 5th defend ant for an amount of rs.3500000 and the same was endorsed in favour of the plaintiff as security for the facilities granted to the first defendant firm.
it may number be necessary for us to refer to the stand taken by the other defendants.
from the judgment and order dated 23.10.1982 of the kerala high companyrt in a.s.
the first defendant firm was supply ing goods companysisting of hill products and used to receive payments by way of cheques.
and the understanding was that the cheques would be presented only after the consignment was despatched.
2 to 4 and 6 and the liability of the 5th defendant is restricted to the extent of immovable properties mortgaged by her.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 183 of 1984.
the 6th defendant alone filed an appeal in the high court and the others figured as respondents.
chitale aseem mehrotra mukul mudgal r.k.
aggarwal and sudhir gopi for the appellant.
he also pleaded that he would number admit the purchase of cheques by the plaintiff and that plaintiff was only a collection agent and there was numberconsideration for purchase and therefore the plaintiff was number a holder in due companyrse.
viswanatha iyer and p.k.
aggarwal s.k.
number 309 of 1977.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by jayachandra reddy j. in this appeal an important question touching upon the interpretation of section 9 of the negotiable instruments act 1881 act for short defining holder in due companyrse falls for companysideration.
2 to 4 as partners who are brothers was doing business in telli cherry in hill produces and they were allowed credit facili ties by the plaintiff bank like accommodation by way of hundi discount key loan and cheque purchases upto a limit of rs.3500000.
2 to 5 by two sepa rate agreements offered to pay the amounts to the plaintiff bank and as per the terms therein they were to pay rs.
pillai for the respondents.
the high companyrt confirmed the findings of the trial companyrt but modified the decree holding that immovable properties described in the schedule to the plaint would be proceeded against in the first instance and if the entire decree amount cannumber be realised by the sale of those properties the plaintiff bank would proceed against the assets of the first defendantfirm and for the balance if any the decree holder would proceed against defendants number.
the plaintiff catholic syrian bank limited is a banking company incorporated under the indian companypanies act having its head office in trichur and branches at various places.
