M.Balaji v.

Perim Janardhana Rao, (Madras) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1668529

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Before:- Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

Civil Suit No.941 of 2010. D/d. 08.01.2020.

M.Balaji – Plaintiff

Versus

Perim Janardhana Rao and Ors. – Defendants

For the Plaintiff :- Mr.Sarath Chandran for Mr.S.V.Kirubanandam, Advocate.

For the Defendants :- Mr.V.Balasubramanian, Advocate.

IMPORTANT

Cheque is an acknowledgement of debt – Even if the said cheque is not

presented in time and become stale, but it is proved that the cheque was issued
with intention to discharge the debt or part of the debt, then the limitation has
to be reckoned from the date of the cheque.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118 – Indian Contract Act, 1872,
Section 25(3) – Acknowledgement of Debt – Whether a dishonoured cheque will
save the limitation of time barred debt, in the absence of promise’ – A Cheque is a
negotiable instrument carrying the promise implicitly, unlike a pro-note where the
promise is explicit and mandatory – Limitation has to be reckoned from the date
the cheque and not on the fact ‘whether the cheque was honoured or dishonoured ‘
– Held that even if the said cheque is not presented in time and become stale, but it
is proved that the cheque was issued with intention to discharge the debt or part of
the debt then, the limitation has to be reckoned from the date of the cheque
considering the cheque as acknowledgement of debt.

[Paras 63 to 65]

Cases Referred :

Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar 2019(4) SCC 197

Hindustan Apparel Industries v. Fair Deal Corporation, New Delhi (2000) SCC
Online Guj 177

Rajpathi Prasad v. Kaushalya Kuer (1980) SCC OnLine Pat 107

Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Lakmi Prasad 2009(11) SCC 545

JUDGMENT

Dr.G.Jayachandran, J. – The plaint averment in brief:-

Mr.M.Balaji, the plaintiff herein is a businessman in real estate since 2004. He had
entered into agreement with land owners in and around Bangalore advancing
money to them. The first defendant a businessman dealing with leather products at
Chennai in the name of M/s.JAY AR Enterprises, a partnership firm approached
the plaintiff expressing his interest in purchasing those properties. On 09.09.2004,
the first defendant purchased 50% interest in three acres of land in S.No.1,
Giddanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District through the plaintiff
and gained his trust. Subsequently, the first defendant expressed his interest to
purchase 5 acres 22½ guntas of agricultural land in Bidaraguppe Village at
Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, in which, the
plaintiff had already acquired interest. The sale price for the said land was finalised
@ Rs. 46 lakhs per acre with condition that the plaintiff should get permission for
converting the usage of the said land from agricultural to non agricultural purpose.
The plaintiff spent huge money for the said conversion and also spent heavily on
settling the Court dispute among the land owners.

2. Thereafter, the plaintiff arranged for the sale deeds being executed directly
in the name of the first defendant. The plaintiff believing the first defendant
paid the sale consideration to the land owners from out of his personal fund.
The plaintiff by issuing post dated cheques got three sale deeds dated
19.03.2005 and one sale deed dated 11.04.2005 registered in the name of the
first defendant directly. Based on the resolution passed by the second
defendant firm cheque of the partnership firm was issued by the first
defendant to purchase the above said land in his personal name. In the said
transaction, the first defendant is liable to pay Rs. 2,56,00,000/- whereas, he
paid only a sum of Rs. 1,77,00,000/- and the balance sum of Rs. 79,00,000/-
was due and payable by the plaintiff.
3. The entire transaction on behalf of the first defendant was done through his
Power Agent Krishnamurthy. When the plaintiff demanded the balance of Rs.
79,00,000/-, Krishnamurthy the Power Agent of the first defendant executed a
letter of acknowledgment dated 15.04.2006 in favour of the plaintiff.
Subsequently, the first defendant issued a cheque from the Bank account
maintained by the second defendant for a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- dated
30.10.2007 drawn on ABN AMRO Bank, Haddows Road Branch, Chennai.
On 15.04.2008, the plaintiff presented the cheque for collection. The same was
dishonoured with endorsement “Insufficient fund”. Notice was issued to the
first defendant calling upon him to pay the dues covered under the said cheque.
Denying the liability, the first defendant sent a reply dated 30.05.2008.
Therefore, the plaintiff has initiated proceedings under section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act to prosecute the first defendant before the XVI
 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.19342 of
2008 and the same is pending.
4. Thus, the plaintiff is entitle to receive a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- with interest at
the rate of 18% pa. Hence the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,21,66,000/- with
interest at the rate of 18% from the date of suit till the date of recovery on the
principle sum of Rs. 79,00,000/-.
5. The Written statement averment in brief:-
The defendants deny the plaint averments in toto. According to them, the suit claim
is barred by limitation since, the alleged cause of action took place between
19.03.2005 and 11.04.2005. The cheque dated 30.10.2007 is not a fresh promise to
pay a time barred debt and it will not give a supporting point for limitation.
V.Krishnamurthy who was the erstwhile Power Agent and employee under the first
defendant has stolen the cheque leaf from the first defendant. On the criminal
complaint initiated against the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy before Central Crime
Branch, Chennai, they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The said
criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee. Further, the
defendants had already instituted suit before the Civil Court at Tirupathi against
Krishnamurthy and the plaintiff for surreptitiously withdrawing the defendants’
money for purchase of property at Tirupathi in the name of the plaintiff. The
alleged letter of acknowledgment dated 15.04.2006 executed by Krishnamurthy
cannot be the basis for any claim against the defendants in the absence of any proof
of money payable by the defendants.

6. The criminal case initiated under the Negotiable Instruments Act against the
first defendant though initially ended in conviction before the trial court, the
judgement of the trial Court was later reversed in the appeal by the
Appellate Court and therefore, there is no enforceable debt against the
defendants. The plaintiff along with Krishnamurthy who is the estranged
employee of the first defendant had illegally withdrawn lakhs of rupees from
the first defendant. There is no document to show that the plaintiff had
interest in 5 acres 22½ guntas of agriculture land in Bidaraguppe Village at
Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and he spent
heavily towards conversion of the said agricultural land into non agricultural
land. Further, the allegation of fixing the price of the land @ 46 lakhs per
acre is not true. The claim of the plaintiff is false and is not entitled for any
interest as claimed.
7. Based on the above averments, the following issues were framed by this Court
on 18.09.2014:-
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,21,66,000/- from the
defendants along with interest at 18% p.a on the principal sum of Rs. 79,00,000/-
from the date of plaint ?
2.Whether the suit claim is sustainable on speculation as the plaintiff is a
speculator and middle man in real estate business ?
3.Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?
4.Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties ?
5.Whether the dishonoured cheque will give raise to a cause of action without any
specific promise to pay a time barred debt under section 25 (3) of Indian Contract
Act ?
6.Whether the suit claim is sustainable in view of the provision of section 139 of
Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the presumption contemplated under
section 139 is sufficient to prove the claim in the suit without any acceptable
evidence to show that the defendants owe the suit claim to the plaintiff ?

7.Whether the claim of the plaintiff is proved beyond reasonable doubt in the
absence of any legally enforceable claim to sustain in the suit ?
8.To what other reliefs, the parties are entitled to?”

8. To substantiate their respective claim, the plaintiff and the defendants have
examined one witness each. On behalf of the plaintiff, 69 documents were
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.69. On behalf of the defendants, 21 documents were
marked as Exs.D.1 to D.21.
9. The plaintiff, M.Balaji was examined as P.W.1. According to him, the first
defendant is the partner of second defendant firm. Defendants 3 and 4 are the
other partners. The first defendant approached him for purchase of 5 acres 22
guntas of land at Bangalore in which, the plaintiff had acquired interest and
right by entering into agreement with the land owners. Though initially, he was
not interested to the proposal of the first defendant to sell the lands to the
defendant later, agreed for it, on the specific understanding that the plaintiff
will be paid Rs. 46 lakhs per acre. Accordingly, he acted upon investing his
money by advancing sale consideration and for other expenses to get
conversion of land usage, settle the litigation between the land owners. He
facilitated the first defendant to purchase of the properties and get it registered
in the name of the first defendant directly.
10.According to the plaintiff, he entered into a sale agreement with one
B.Chennakesava on 05.11.2004 who is the absolute owner of 7½ guntas of
land situated at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District. In the said agreement, B.Chennakesava for himself
and on behalf of the adjoining land owners falling under S.Nos.269, 270 and
279 at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore
Rural District agreed to sell the land @ Rs. 41 lakhs per acre and executed the
sale agreement marked as Ex P-3. In the said agreement for sale between the
plaintiff and B.Chennakesava, the parties have agreed for transfer of 5 acres
22½ guntas land for a sale consideration of Rs. 41 lakhs per acre. The plaintiff
has advanced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to B.Chennakesava. The plaintiff
contends that he invested his money for conversion of the said land into non
agricultural land and to settle the dispute between the land owners. He
arranged for execution of the sale deeds by the respective land owners directly
in the name of the first defendant showing the guide line value of the
properties which was far below the agreed value. The land owners accordingly,
 executed four sale deeds which were marked as Exs.P.5 to P.8 respectively.
The sale consideration agreed by the first defendant for the said land was Rs.
2,56,00,000/- whereas, he paid only Rs. 1,77,00,000/-. For the balance sum of
Rs. 79,00,000/- one Krishnamurthy the Power Agent of the first defendant
gave an acknowledgment letter dated 15.04.2006 (Ex.P.10). Later, the first
defendant gave the cheque dated 17.03.2007 drawn in the name of the account
of the second defendant, for a sum of Rs. 79,00,000/- (Ex.P.11). When the said
cheque was presented for collection, it was returned for want of sufficient
fund. Criminal case was initiated for dishonouring the cheque after issuing
notice. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff is marked as Ex.P.13 and the
reply of the defendants is marked as Ex.P.14.
11.The criminal case initiated for dishonouring of cheque ended in conviction on
16.06.2009 and the order copy is marked as Ex.P.16. The bank statements of
the plaintiff between 01/04/2004 and 01/07/2005 to show that he has paid
money to some of the land owners namely Sriramaiah, Narayanappa and
Gangadaran is Ex.P.17. The statement of accounts for the period 10/12/2004 to
15/04/2005 to show payments made by the plaintiff to the land owners
Chennakesava, Naryaanappa and Sriramaiah and to the Sub-Registrar, Anekal
is marked as Ex P-42. These documents were relied to prove that the plaintiff
was involved in the land purchased in the name of the first defendant through
his power agent Krishnamurthy and he has financially contributed for the
transaction.
12.To prove that in the earlier transaction in respect of the property at
Giddanahalli village in which the first defendant purchased the land on
09/09/2004 and after converting into plots sold it for huge profit to third
parties, the plaintiff relies on the sale deeds Exs.P-18, P-19, P-20 and P-21, to
prove that the first defendant has taken inconsistent stand about the
authroisation given by him to his power agent Krishnamurthy and the
entrustment of signed cheques to him, the plaintiff relies on Ex P-22 and Ex P
23.
13.The copy of the FIR dated 20/08/2007 given by the first defendant against his
power agent Krishnamurthy and the plaintiff is Ex P-22. In this complaint the
first defendant has alleged that Kirshnamurthy along with Balaji ( Plaintiff )
had cheated him to the tune of Rs. 1.70 crores by misleading him that they
have purchased land at Kanakapura, Bangalore for Rs. 65 lakhs in the name of
the firsr defendant,but actually they did not pruchased any land at Kanakapura.
The first defendant has also alleged that the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy had
taken away Rs. 2,56,00,000/- from him for the purchase of the properties at
Sharjapur Road registered in his him, whereas on verification from the vendors
he came to know that the they were paid only Rs. 1,50,00,000/-.
14.The plaintiff relies on this document to show that the first defendant has
admitted in his complaint that the said Krishnamurthy is the working partner in
KVL Associates, Chennai which is the sister concern of the second defendant
firm. Further krishnomurthy was authorised by the first defendant to negotiate
 with the parties for purchase of property and he has executed a power of
attorney deed in his favour for that purpose.
15.The stop payment letter given by the first defendant is marked as Ex P:-23. In
this letter the first defendant informed ABN AMRO Bank, Nugambakkam
Branch that 8 of his signed cheques are missing from his office. To avoid
misuse of the cheques he instruct the bank to stop payment. The Cheque
bearing No. 401681 ( Ex P-11) is not one among the 8 cheques referred in this
letter dated 14/07/2008.
16.The counsel for the plaintiff pointing out that Ex P-11 cheque bearing No.
401681 dated 30/10/2007 was presented for collection by the plaintiff on
15/4/2008. The said cheque was returned by the banker with the memo Ex P-
12 intimating that the cheque is returned unpaid for funds insufficiency.
Therefore the plaintiff caused legal notice (Ex P-13) to the first defendant on
14/05/2008. The defendant in his reply Ex P-14 has stated that the plaintiff and
Krishnamurthy were his agents for purchase of lands in Bangalore and sell it to
third parties for higher value after some period. In the course of the said
dealing, he being a frequent traveller abroad, gave signed 20 cheque leaves
bearing Numbers 401071 to 401090 to the Plaintiff and Krishnamurthy to
withdrew money from the second defendant firm account for effecting
payment to the land owners. In the criminal complaint given to the Central
Crime Branch on 20/08/2007 against the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy, the
defendant has not wisphered about entrustment of signed blank cheques to the
plaintiff or to Krishnamurthy. In Ex P-23 dated 14/07/2008, the letter
intimating the banker to stop payment, the first defendant has stated that the
signed blank cheques are missing and to avoid misuse payment should be
stopped. The next day the first defendant has given a complaint to the
Commissioner of Police alleging that the plaintiff ( BALAJI) and
Krishnamurthy hatched conspiracy to misuse one of the blank cheque bearing
No. 401681 dated 30/10/2007 drawn on ABN AMRO BANK, Chennai which
was issued for purchase of land during the year 2004-2005, filed it for Rs.
79,00,000/-, presented the same and got it dishonoured. The learned counsel
for the plaintiff submitted that having admitted the liability and issued cheque
for Rs. 79,00,000/- just to deprive the plaintiff, the first defendant has taken
different and inconsistent stands at different point of time only to be exposed
of his falsehood.
17.Ex P-25, Ex-P-26, Ex P-30 to Ex P-33, Ex P-61 , Ex P-64 to Ex P-65, are
documents relating to the proceedings in connection with the private complaint
initiated before the XVI Addl. CMM at Bangalore in CC 19342/2008 under
section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in respect of the cheque marked
as Ex P-11. The said criminal complaint filed by the plaintiff ended in
conviction in C.C.19342/2008 on 18/11/2010 (judgement copy is marked as
Ex P-33). On Appeal before the Session Judge, Bangalore in C.A. 878/2010
the conviction was set aside on 21/07/2012. ( judgement copy is marked as Ex
P-67). The plaintiff aggrieved by the order of the appellate court has preferred
 appeal before the High Court, Bangalore in Cri.Appeal No. 1110/2012.
( Appeal copy is marked as Ex P-61).
18.The documents connected to the civil proceedings initiated by the first
defendant against Balaji (the plaintiff herein), Ravoori Swarnalatha w/o Balaji
and Krishnamurthy before the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi in O.S
107/2007 is relied by the plaintiff and they are marked as exhibits P-29, Ex P-
34 to 40. The pith and substance of the said suit is that Balaji (the plaintiff in
this suit), his wife Ravoori Swarnalatha and krishnamurthy misappropriated
the money of the first defendant and purchase property at Tirupathi, hence
prayer to declare the properties purchased in the name of the Balaji and his
wife were from out of the amounts received from the Perim Janarthan Rao (the
first defendant herein).
19.The orders passed by the Government of Karnataka permitting the conversion
of the agricultural land which are the subject matter of the transactions under
consideration in the present suit is marked as Ex P-41. The plaintiff relies this
document to show he had a role in getting the conversion orders and for which
he has spent money.
20.The Andra Bank, Vidyapeetha Circle Branch, Bangalore in which the plaintiff
maintains account had given the letter dated 08/09/2012 certifying that the
plaintiff had purchased 5 pay orders from his account as on 13/03/2005 out of
which 4 were purchased in favour of Sub-Registrar, Anekal and one in favour
of Sreeramulu. Later the plaintiff has cancelled one pay order of Rs. 2,25,600/-
purchased in favour of Sub-Registrar, Anekal. The plaintiff contention is that
these are the investment he made on behalf of the first defendant to purchase
the lands covering the sale deeds Ex P-5 to P-8.
21.The statement of bank accounts of the defendants in ABN Amro Bank, Indian
Bank and Indian Overseas Bank are marked as Ex P-47 to 52. The statement of
Bank Accounts of M/s Nimeesha Leathers Exports Ltd, M/s KVL Associates
the cheques issued by Krishnamurthy for KVL Associates for purchase of
demand drafts in the name of the vendors and cheques issued by the 2nd
defendant are exhibits P-54 and P-55.
22.To show that after purchase of the properties under sale deeds Ex P-5 to Ex P-
8 the his power agent Krishnamurthy, the first defendant has appointed one Sri
Rama Bala Subba Rayudu as his power agent on 17/03/2007 under Ex P-57.
23.The Sub Registrar has refixed the guideline value of the said property after
conversion and issued certificate of valuation and endorsment on 21/03/2011.
The plaintiff rely on this document marked as exhibit P-59 since the
endorsement certificate is addressed to the plaintiff.
24.The statement of account in respect of the 2nd defendant firm maintained at
ABN Amro Bank, Chennai is Ex P-47. This document indicates that the
cheques bearing No. 401673 for Rs. 9,50,000/-, Cheque No. 401676 for Rs.
5,00,000/- and cheque No. 401683 for Rs. 5,00,000/- were issued by the 2nd
defendant in favour of the plaintiff and same were encashed by the plaintiff.
 25.The learned counsel for the plaintiff referring the above documents and
explaining the purpose for which those documents are relied, submitted that
there can be no doubt about the facts that the first defendant is one of the
partners of the second defendant firm, the second respondent firm has resolved
to utilise the funds of the firm to purchase lands in the name of the first
defendant, the cheques of the second defendant firm were used for the
purchase of the lands at Bangalore.
26.The first defendant though initially denied the status of Krishnamurthy, admits
in his complaint to police commissioner and in the cross examination that
Krishnamurthy was his authorised agent and only through him the sale deeds
Ex P-5 to P-8 were got registered. The recitals in these Exhibits also indicates
that Krishnamurthy is the authorised representative of the first defendant.
While so, the acknowledgement letter dated 15/04/2006 Ex P-10 given by
Krishnamurthy binds the principal and the first defendant cannot turn around
and plead that the act of his agent does not binds him.
27.Pointing the portion of the DW-1 testimony where the first defendant has
admitted that he started the firm KVL Associates and he appointed
Krishnamurthy as the working partner of the said firm, the learned counsel for
the plaintiff would submit that, this admission positively disproves the claim of
the defendants that the acknowledgement letter Ex P- 10 admitting liability of
Rs. 79,00,000/- and the cheque Ex P-11 for Rs. 79,00,000/- were documents
created in collusion between the plaintiff and the said Krishnamurthy.
Therefore the learned counsel submits that there is no reasonable ground to
suspect Ex P-10 acknowledgement of debt and issuance of cheque (Ex P-11) to
discharge the debt.
28.Regarding the criminal prosecution initiated under section 138 of NI Act, the
learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the the present civil suit for
recovery of money has to be independently decided based on the evidence and
preponderance of probabilities. The finding of criminal court not relevant for
deciding the civil suit. The learned counsel relies on the judgement of the
Supreme court rendered in Seth Ramdayal Jat v. Lakmi Prasad [2009(11) SCC
545] to add emphasis to his submission that the civil proceedings cannot be
determined on the basis of the judgement of criminal court finding, except
statement admitted by the parties which are relevant subject to sections 21,23,
42 and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act,
29.The learned counsel submit that it has to be reasonable presumed that a person
who was issuing the cheque admits his liability by issuing the cheque
irrespective of the fact whether the cheque is honoured or not. To buttress this
submission he relies upon the judgements:-
1) Rajpathi Prasad v. Kaushalya Kuer and others ( 1980 SCC OnLine Pat 107) and
2) Hindustan Apparel Industries v. Fair Deal Corporation, New Delhi ( 2000 SCC
Online Guj 177).
and submitted that apart from the letter of the agent Ex P-10, the dishonoured
cheque Ex P-11 independently constitutes direct acknowledgment of the debt by
the defendant.

30.Rebutting the submission of the defendants that the blank cheques entrusted
to Krishnamurthy for a different purpose was misused by him in collusion
with the plaintiff, the learned counsel submit that, the cheque Ex P- 11
admittedly bears the signature of the first defendant. It is admitted by the
first defendant in the connected proceedings that blank signed cheques was
entrusted by him to Krishnamurthy to pay the sale consideration, broker
commission, registration charges and other incidental expenses. The recital
in Ex P-69 the power of attorney deed dated 14/03/2005 executed by the
first defendant in favour of the said Krishnamurthy empowers the agent to
appear before the Sub-Registrar , Anekal for the presentation of deeds that
would be executed by the owners of the aforesaid lands. The bank account
statements and the letter of the Andra Bank which are marked as Ex P-42,
Ex P-43 and Ex P-44 clearly proves that the part sale consideration to the
vendors and registration charges were paid by the plaintiff from his bank
account. Even assuming only blank cheque was given by the first defendant
it would attract the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, in case if the defendant fails to prove that the cheque was
not issued to discharge of a debt.
31.The learned counsel for the plaintiff would state that, the defendants have not
rebutted the said statutory presumption, contrarily, the plaintiff through the
above mentioned documents have established there was financial transaction
between the plaintiff and the defendants and the plaintiff has contributed his
service and money for completion of the transactions pertaining to the land
purchased under Ex P-5 to P-8.
32.Relying upon Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar [2019(4) SCC 197] the counsel for
the plaintiff submitted that there is strong presumption against the defendants
which has not been rebutted. Except a bald denial of debt and fake allegation
of misuse of cheque by his agent in collusion with the plaintiff, there is no
cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. Hence suit to be allowed.
33.In defence, the first defendant has mounted the witness box. 21 documents are
marked as defence side exhibits. Ex D-1 to D-5 are civil proceedings for
recovery money initiated against the plaintiff and others by one Gottipatti
Damodara Naidu. Ex D-6 and D-7 are the copy of the criminal complaint
under section 200 Cr.P.C and FIR copy filed by one Narra Jagadish against the
plaintiff and his wife before the Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathi. These
documents are relied by the defendants to show that the plaintiff is a financier
operating at Tirupathi and had involved in prize chit and money circulation
fraud. Ex D-8 is the letter of acknowledgment purported to have been given by
Krishnamurthy to the first defendant admitting the receipt of Rs. 3,20,45,826/-
which is in tune with the auditor’s report Ex P-46/-. Ex D-9 FIR in Cr.No. 470/
2007 on the file of crime branch Chennai is duplication of Ex P-22. Ex D-10
legal notice under section 138 of NI Act issued by the plaintiff is duplication
 of Ex P-13. Ex D-11 reply notice of the defendants counsel is duplication of
Ex P-14. Ex D-12 complaint to Commissioner of Police, Chennai given by the
defendant is duplication of Ex P-24. Ex D-13 stop payment letter of the
defendant is duplication of Ex P-23. Ex D-14 and Ex D-15 are orders of the
Madras High Court, granting bail to the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy in Cr.No.
470/2007. Ex D- 16 is the copy of the application made by the first defendant
before the JM-1, Poonamallee to furnish copy of the accused statements
( Balaji and Krishnamurthy). Ex P-17 is replica of the complaint Ex D-12 and
P-24. Ex D-18 is the final report filed by CCB, Chennai in Cr.No. 470/2007.
Ex D-19 is replica of Ex P-67. Ex D-20 is duplication of Ex P-8 and Ex D-21
is duplication of Ex P- 30.
34.The learned counsel for the defendant s relying upon the testimony of the first
defendant and the documents, contend that believing Krishnamurthy, blank
signed cheques were entrusted to negotiate with the land owners for purchase
of the land covered under Exs.P.5 to P.8. The plaintiff who was the middleman
for the said transaction has received his remuneration. However he in
connivance with the power agent Krishnamurthy has overdrawn money from
the 2nd defendant’s bank account more and above what is payable to the
vendors. For the said act of cheating criminal complaint lodged with
Commissioner of Police, Chennai against the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy. On
his complaint, Balaji and Krishnamurthy were arrested and released on bail by
order of the High Court Madras vide Ex D-15 and D-16. Therefore in
connivance with his estranged Power Agent, Krishnamurthy the blank cheque
Ex P-11 was filed up and presented for collection.
35.The plaintiff initiated private complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act
in respect of the cheque issued in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.
79,00,000/-. The Judicial Magistrate convicted the defendant. Later, the
Principal City Civil Court and Sessions Judge Bangalore City vide order dated
21.07.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.878 of 2010 (Ex.D.19) has set aside the
judgement and order of the trial Court dated 18.11.2010 convicting the first
defendant. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant further states across the bar
that the further appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the High Court against
the order of acquittal also dismissed by the High Court, Bangalore.
36.The prime contention of the learned counsel for the defendant is that, there is
no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to pay Rs. 46 lakhs per
acre in respect of the property covered under the sale deeds Ex P-5 to P-8. The
plaintiff was duly paid for his services and nothing payable to him. Contrarily
the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy (since deceased) has fraudulently encashed the
blank signed cheques entrusted and facing criminal prosecution. Though the
criminal court finding does not bind the civil proceedings, the admissions and
statements made by the parties in the criminal proceedings are relevant and
admissible in evidence in the subsequent proceedings. In those proceedings the
plaintiff has admitted that he has received more than 19,50,000/- from the
defendants. He has also admitted that there is no documentary evidence to
 show that he had prior agreement with the land owners except Chennakesava
who held only 7½ guntas of land.
37.The Learned counsel for the defendant strongly relying upon section 188 of the
Indian Contract Act, submitted that the power of attorney deed given in favour
of Krishnamurthy never authorisied him to borrow money or acknowledge
debts. He was only authorised to carryout the registration work. Therefore Ex
P-10 alleged acknowledgement of debt letter given by the agent without
authorisation is invalid.
38.On considering the rival submissions, this court finds that the dispute between
the plaintiff and the defendants primarily centres upon Ex.P.10, the letter of
acknowledgement alleged to have been given by Krishnamurthy, the Power
Agent of the first defendant. The content of the said Exhibit (Ex.P.10) reads as
below:-
“Towards purchase of lands through M.Balaji at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur
Main Road, Bangalore in Sy.Nos.269, 270 and 273.
Extent of land 5 Acres and 22½ guntas at the rate of Rs. 46 lakhs per acre.
Total amount payable

Rs.2,56,00,000/-

Amount paid by way of cheques, costs and DD’s

Rs.1,77,00,000/-

Amount due to M.Balaji from P.Janardha Rao

Rs.79,00,000/-

K.Krishnamurthy (s/d)

G.P.A Holder of

P.Janardhan Rao

Bangalore
15-04-2006″

39.The specific case of the plaintiff is that, he had an understanding with the
land owners to sell 5 acres 22½ guntas at the rate of Rs. 41 lakhs. Knowing
this the first defendant expressed his desire to buy those land for a sale
consideration @ Rs. 46 lakhs per acre. To substantiate this contention the
plaintiff relies the recital in Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.3.
40.However, the recital in Ex.P.3 would show that one B.Chennakesava holding
7½ guntas of land has agreed to sell 5 acres of land @ Rs. 41 lakhs per acre in
S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District to the plaintiff. In this document,
Chennakesava claims himself as the representative of the owners of 5 acres
 22½ guntas of land. The plaintiff has not explained how this document could
be relied upon for his contention that he had interest in the entire 5 acres 22½
guntas of land situated at S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe Village at
Sarjapur Main Road, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District when there is no
document to link B.Chennakesava and other owners of 5 acres 22½ guntas of
land at S.Nos.269, 270 and 279 at Bidaraguppe Village at Sarjapur Main Road,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The lack of privity of contract with
other owners, renders a plaintiff case weak. Even assuming that the plaintiff
have some claim over the property which is covered under Exs.P.5 to P.8 by
virtue of Ex.P.3 agreement of sale, it is an agreement between the plaintiff and
one of the several owners who hold only 7½ guntas of land. How this
agreement of sale will bind the remaining owners holding more than 5 acres of
land is unexplained by the plaintiff. Further, the evidence available reveals that
the first defendant has purchased the property directly from the land owners
and got it registered including the portion of the land for which the plaintiff
had entered into agreement of sale with Chennakesava under Ex.P-3. If at all
the plaintiff wants to ascertain his right or interest, before or the moment sale
deeds executed and got registered in favour of the first defendant he should
have challenged the said transaction.
41.Therefore, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he had any
interest or right in respect of properties covering Ex P-5 to P-8 and also the
plaintiff has not proved that there was agreement between him and the
defendants to alienate the property at the rate of Rs. 46 lakhs per acre.
42.The counsel for the plaintiff states that Ex in P-10 the agent of the first
respondent has acknowledged the existence of agreement and debt of Rs.
79,00,000/-. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the Defendant, to
acknowledge the debt, the agent should have authorisation. In the absence of
authorisation, the act of the agent will not bind the principal. sections 186 to
188 of the Indian Contract Act, read as below:-
“186. Agent’s authority may be expressed or implied.-The authority of an agent
may be expressed or implied. 55

187. Definitions of express and implied authority.-An authority is said to

be express when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said
to be implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case;
and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be
accounted circumstances of the case. -An authority is said to be express
when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said to be
implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case; and
things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be
accounted circumstances of the case.” Illustration A owns a shop in
Serampor, living himself in Calcutta, and visiting the shop occasionally. The
shop is managed by B, and he is in the habit of ordering goods from C in the
name of A for the purposes of the shop, and of paying for them out of A’s
funds with A’s knowledge. B has an implied authority from A to order
 goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop. A owns a shop
in Serampor, living himself in Calcutta, and visiting the shop occasionally.
The shop is managed by B, and he is in the habit of ordering goods from C
in the name of A for the purposes of the shop, and of paying for them out of
A’s funds with A’s knowledge. B has an implied authority from A to order
goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop.”
188. Extent of agent’s authority.-An agent having an authority to do an act has
authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act. -
An agent having an authority to do an act has authority to do every lawful
thing which is necessary in order to do such act.” An agent having an authority
to carry on a business, has authority to do every lawful thing necessary for the
purpose, or usually done in the course, of conducting such business.
Illustrations
(a) A is employed by B, residing in London, to recover at Bombay a debt due
to B. A may adopt any legal process necessary for the purpose of recovering
the debt, and may give a valid discharge for the same. (a) A is employed by B,
residing in London, to recover at Bombay a debt due to B. A may adopt any
legal process necessary for the purpose of recovering the debt, and may give a
valid discharge for the same.”
(b) A constitutes B his agent to carry on his business of a ship-builder. B may
purchase timber and other materials, and hire workmen, for the purpose of
carrying on the business. (b) A constitutes B his agent to carry on his business
of a ship-builder. B may purchase timber and other materials, and hire
workmen, for the purpose of carrying on the business.”
189. In the light of these provisions, it is essential to see the recital of the general
power of attorney dated 14/03/2005 executed by the first defendant in favour
of the said Krishnamurthy which is marked as Ex P 69. The recital in this deed
speaks about the agreement already entered between the defendant and the
land owners in respect of 2 acres 35 guntas of land in Survey No. 270 and 269
at Bidaragauppe Village. The defendant expressing his inability to go over to
Anekal has authorised Krishnamurthy to do all or any of the following acts,
deeds and things on behalf of Pertim Janarthana Rao ( first defendant).
1) To appear before the Sub-Registrar, Anekal for the purpose of presentation of
the sale deeds that would be executed by the owners of the aforesaid lands. To
appear on my behalf before the sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration of the
sale deeds in my name and on my behalf and to sign all statutory application
forms, to swear to affidavits or such other documents or papers as may be required
and also to do such other acts, deeds and things that may be required to be done for
the effective completion of registration of sale deeds in my favour.
2) To represent me before the Revenue Authorities for the purpose of transfer of
Khatha in respect of the aforesaid lands in my name and for the said purpose to
sign applications, statutory forms, to swear to affidavits. My lawful attorney shall
have powers to pay cess, tax and such other outgoings in respect of the aforesaid
lands on my behalf.”
 44.The recital thus authorise Krishnamurthy only to do acts and deeds relating
to registration of the sale deeds and nothing more. While so, the alleged
acknowledgment of debt executed by Krishnmurthy on behalf of the first
defendant will not bind the defendants.
45.In this context, it is also relevant to refer Sections 226, 227 and 228 of the
Indian Contracts Act which deals enforcement and consequences of agent’s
contracts, and how far the act of agent exceeding his authority will bind the
principal.
“226. Enforcement and consequences of agent’s contracts.- Contracts entered into
through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be
enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as if the
contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person. -Contracts
entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent,
may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences as
if the contracts had been entered into the acts done by the principal in person.”
Illustrations
(a) A buys goods from B, knowing that he is an agent for their sale, but not
knowing who is the principal. B’s principal is the person entitled to claim from A
the price of the goods, and A cannot, in a suit by the principal, set-off against that
claim a debt due to himself from B. (a) A buys goods from B, knowing that he is
an agent for their sale, but not knowing who is the principal. B’s principal is the
person entitled to claim from A the price of the goods, and A cannot, in a suit by
the principal, set-off against that claim a debt due to himself from B.”
(b) A, being B’s agent, with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives
from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum
in question to B. (b) A, being B’s agent, with authority to receive money on his
behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation
to pay the sum in question to B.”

227. Principal how far bound, when agent exceeds authority.-When an

agent does more than he is authorized to do, and when the part of what he
does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is
beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority
is binding as between him and his principal. -When an agent does more than
he is authorized to do, and when the part of what he does, which is within
his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority,
so much only of what he does as is within his authority is binding as
between him and his principal.” Illustration A, being owner of a ship and
cargo, authorizes B to procure an insurance for 4,000 rupees on the ship. B
procures a policy for 4,000 rupees on the ship, and another for the like sum
on the cargo. A is bound to pay the premium for the policy on the ship, but
not the premium for the policy on the cargo. A, being owner of a ship and
cargo, authorizes B to procure an insurance for 4,000 rupees on the ship. B
procures a policy for 4,000 rupees on the ship, and another for the like sum
 on the cargo. A is bound to pay the premium for the policy on the ship, but
not the premium for the policy on the cargo.”
228. Principal not bound when excess of agent’s authority is not separable.-
Where an agent does more than he is authroized to do, and what he does
beyond the scope of his authority cannot be separated from what is within it,
the principal is not bound to recognize the transaction. -Where an agent does
more than he is authroized to do, and what he does beyond the scope of his
authority cannot be separated from what is within it, the principal is not bound
to recognize the transaction.” Illustration A, authorizes B to buy 500 sheep for
him. B buys 500 sheep and 200 lambs for one sum of 6,000 rupees. A may
repudiate the whole transaction. A, authorizes B to buy 500 sheep for him. B
buys 500 sheep and 200 lambs for one sum of 6,000 rupees. A may repudiate
the whole transaction.”
229. It is seen that Ex P-10 letter given by Krishnamurthy the agent of the first
defendant is not within the authority and it is separable from the acts
authorised. Therefore, execution of the letter Ex P-10 as agent of first
defendant is an act in excess of the authorisation. This execution of this letter
does not fall within the acts authorised to do under Exhibit P-69. Therefore, it
is held that for want of authorisation, the first defendant who is the principal is
not bound by Ex P-10 executed by his agent.
230. Dehors of Ex P-10, independently if other documents are analysed for
ascertaining the existence of liability, in the absence of the documents to show
that the plaintiff has incurred expenses in dealing with the property and the
first defendant agreed for a sale consideration of the properties at the rate of
Rs. 46 lakhs per acre the plaintiff averments stand in air without any
corroboration. Neither in the sale agreement ( Ex P-3) nor in sale deeds marked
as Ex.P.5 to P.8 the property is valued at Rs. 46 lakhs per acre.
231. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, though the market value of the
property was Rs. 46 lakhs per acre, just for registration purpose, it was
undervalued. If that is so, it is for the land owners to speak about it and not the
plaintiff who has nothing to do with the property. Further, in Ex P-59, the
endorsement certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar, Anekal this Court finds
that the Government after conversion of the land use has fixed the market
value of the property at the rate of Rs. 31,50,000/-. Therefore, even by remote
preponderance of probabilities, the case of the plaintiff could not be accepted.
232. This Court finds that except Exs.P-3, P-10 and P.11, all other documents
relied by the plaintiff is either documents relating to the criminal proceedings
initiated by either side or civil proceedings initiated by third parties. The
relevancy of these evidence are almost nil or very remote. The materials
available and culled out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff proves that the
parties are not strangers. There was money transactions between them. Later,
in view of the dispute cropped up, litigations at various forum have been
initiated. As for as the relief sought in this case, the parallel criminal
prosecution based on the cheque marked as Ex P-11 alone is some relevancy.
 The said prosecution has ultimately ended in acquittal. However, as fairly
conceded by both the learned counsel on either side, the finding of the
Criminal Court has less binding effect on the civil proceedings. Therefore, to
arrive at a conclusion on the issues framed evidence has to appreciated
independently. For that purpose, essentially, 3 documents are to be scrutinized.
Those documents are Exs.P-3, P-10 and P-11.
233. As pointed out earlier, Ex P-3 is an agreement for a miniscule minuscule
extent of land (7½ guntas ) with one owner and the property under
consideration is of vast extent of 5 acres and 22½ guntas. (About 40 guntas is
equal to one acre) owned by several persons. The plaintiff has no evidence to
show he has any agreement with all the owners except one.
234. Ex.P.10 is a letter given by Krishnamurthy, the Power Agent of the first
defendant. It is claimed to be letter acknowledging the debt. However, when
tested with the recital of power of attorney deed ( Ex P 69) ‘whether
Krishnamurthy had authority to give such letter’, it is found to be beyond his
authority. Under section 188 of the Indian Contract Act, an Agent can do an
act only to an extent which he is authorised explicitly or impliedly and not
beyond that.
235. Ex.P.10, acknowledgment alleged to have been executed by Krishnamurthy
is dated 15.04.2006. This letter indicates that the first defendant is liable to pay
Rs. 79,00,000/- towards purchase of land bought through the plaintiff. If the
statement found in the document is true, then there must be some evidence that
the plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the other land owners holding
the entire 5 acre 22½ guntas of land whereas, the only document produced by
the plaintiff is Ex.P.3, which is in respect of 7½ guntas of land held by
B.Chennakesava. When the entire transfer of property got completed and sale
deeds Exs.P-5 to P-8 got registered between 19.03.2005 and 11.04.2005, the
necessity to give the letter Ex P-10 on 15/04/2006 is also left unexplained by
the plaintiff.
236. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relying upon the entries made in the
statement of bank accounts and the letter of the Andra Bank which are marked
as Exs.P-17; P-42; P-43 and P-44 would submit that the plaintiff had paid
money to the other land owners on the dates relevant to the date of sale deeds
and paid the necessary registration charges to the Sub-registrar and the same is
admitted by the first defendant.
237. Merely by such entries and admission, the case of the plaintiff cannot be
held to be proved, when there are contra evidence let in by the defendant that
more than Rs. 19 lakhs been paid to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has not
rendered accounts to the first defendant. The plaintiff in his wisdom has
thought fit not to examine the vendors to show that he had some role in the
transactions covered under Exs.P.5 to P.8. Neither he has placed evidence to
lend credence to his case that he has spent money for conversion and to settle
the litigation between the vendors. Therefore, by all means, this case could be
viewed only as a speculative litigation webbed out of documents given in trust
 or held during the normal course of business transaction. For the above
reasons, issues No.1 and 2 are answered in negative.
238. Both the plaintiff as well as the defendants have multiple litigations against
each other. In each case, they have taken different stand. As far as the present
case is concerned, the plaintiff would rely upon Ex P.11 cheque to prove the
liability. No doubt, there shall be an initial presumption of liability regarding
the cheque, however, the said presumption is rebuttable. The defendants can
rebut the presumption by placing materials to show that the cheque was not
issued for the liability in the manner in which the plaintiff has projected.
239. The plaintiff to prove his entitlement of Rs. 79,00,000/- would heavily rely
upon the sale agreement for 7½ guntas of land and the acknowledgement letter
of Krishnamurthy. The content of documents does not correlates the parties,
value of the property and liability mentioned in the cheque Ex P-11. The claim
of Rs. 79,00,000/- for the transactions covered under the sale deeds viz.,
Exs.P.5 to P.8 executed by the land owners directly in the name of the first
defendant either should be established through impeccable documents or
through independent reliable oral evidence. In this case, the plaintiff has failed
to state the exact date the cheque was issued and from whom he received the
cheque.
240. Under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act , unless contrary is
proved, it has to be presumed that it was issued on the date on which it bear.
Being a rebuttable presumption, it is the duty of the Court to look whether the
cheque would have been given on 30/10/2007. In this context, Ex P-22 the
criminal complaint before the Crime Branch, Chennai on 30.08.2007, against
the plaintiff and Krishnamurthy given by the first defendant is relevant and
requires consideration. This complaint was taken on file for investigation in
Crime No. 470/2007. In this complaint it is specifically alleged that the
plaintiff and Krishnamurthy has cheated the first defendant to a tune of Rs.
1.50 crores in connection with the land dealing. While so, after lodging
criminal complaint on 20/08/2007, the first defendant could not have issued
the cheque Ex P-11 in favour of the plaintiff on 30.10.2007.
241. In alternate, the probable date or month of issuance of this cheque can be
ascertained by verifying the dates on which the previous and subsequent
cheques were encashed. From Ex P-47 the ABN/AMRO bank statement of
account of the second respondent firm indicate that most of the cheques
bearing Numbers between 401673 and 401683 were encashed between
October 2004 and January 2005. Out of these cheques, the plaintiff himself has
encashed the following 4 cheques for total sum of Rs. 19,50,000/-:-
1

27/10/2004

Cheque No. 401673 Rs. 9,50,000/-

2

13/12/2004

Cheque No. 401676 Rs. 5,00,000/-

01/01/2004

Cheque No. 401683 Rs. 5,00,000/-

59.Therefore, by preponderance of probabilities, the defendants had rebutted

the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, that the cheques were not issued on 30/10/2007 for any debt or existing
liability. After the rebuttal, the burden shifts on the plaintiff to prove
‘whether the cheque Ex P-11 was given to him by the first defendant on
30/10/2007’ and ‘whether the same was given for discharge of liability’.
The evidence available does not prove the facts asserted by the plaintiff.
Therefore, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the case of the
plaintiff is a story concocted by making use of the cheque and letter given
by Krishnamurthy. Accordingly, the issues 6 and 7 are answered in
negative.
60.The suit is laid before this Court on 25/10/2010 based on the dishonoured
cheque dated 30/10/2007 issued pursuant to the acknowledgment of debt given
by Krishnamurthy on 15/04/2006. As far as the letter of acknowledgment Ex
P-10, which is given by the agent and already in the earlier part of this
judgement it is held that the agent has given this letter without authority. In so
far as the Cheque Ex P-11 is concerned, though it bears 30/10/2007 as date and
under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it shall be presumed
unless the contrary is proved the negotiable instrument bearing a date was
made or drawn on such date, this point has been discussed above at length and
held that the presumption under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
regarding the date has been rebutted through the entries found in the 2nd
defendant’s bank statement of account marked as Ex P-47.
61.Sub-section (3) of section 25 Indian Contracts Act deals with
acknowledgement time barred debt. According to Pollock and Mulla ( The
Indian Contract Act and Specific Relief Act – 14th Edition, Lexis Nexis –
Butterworths Wadhwa), in order to invoke the provisions of Section 25(3) of
the Indian Contracts Act, the following conditions must be satisfied:-
62.It must be referred to a debt which the creditor but for the period of limitation,
might have enforced;
63.There must be a distinct promise to pay wholly or in part such debt and
64.The promise must be in writing signed by the person or by his duly appointed
agent.
65.Therefore, a promise to pay a time-barred debt is a condition precedent for
application of section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. The said promise must
be express and unequivocal. Now, when we read the content of the letter – Ex
P-10 given by Krishnamurthy as general power of Attorney holder of the first
defendant, leave alone the authority to give such letter, we find that the
promise to pay is conspicuously absent in this letter. Assuming the letter
acknowledging the debt is valid and given prior to the expiry of limitation, it is
highly improbable to say the cheque – Ex P-11 was issued on 30/10/2007.
Undoubtedly, it should have been left the possession of the defendants and
come to the possession of the plaintiff prior to 20/08/2007, the date on which
the first defendant gave complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai
alleging fraud and cheating.
66.However, the cheque being dishonoured, one of the issue framed in this case is
‘whether a dishonoured cheque will save the limitation of time barred debt, in
the absence of promise’. This issue is a significant question of law, though
may not have serious bearing on the case in hand, even if held either way.
67.Cheque is defined under section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as a ‘bill
of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable
otherwise than on demand’. Cheque is therefore a negotiable instrument
carrying the promise implicitly, unlike a pro-note where the promise is explicit
and mandatory. Therefore, limitation has to be reckoned from the the date the
cheque and not on the fact ‘whether the cheque was honoured or dishonoured’.
Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the issuance of cheque is to be
presumed to be issued for discharge of debt. The consequence event ‘whether
the said cheque on presentation honoured or not,’ is immaterial.
68.In the opinion of this Court, even if the said cheque is not presented in time
and become stale, but it is proved that the cheque was issued with intention to
discharge the debt or part of the debt then, the limitation has to be reckoned
from the date of the cheque considering the cheque as acknowledgment of
debt.
69.As far as the facts of this case in hand, the cheque in the name of the plaintiff
gives him the cause of action to sue and suit being filed within 3 years from
the date on which the cheque bear, this prima facie saves the limitation. The
plaintiff cannot be de-suited on the ground of limitation. However, the plaintiff
fails to succeed, since, this Court has held that the plaintiff has not proved his
case for recovery of money and the cheque is not issued for any enforcible
debt. Therefore, the discussions on limitation based on the fact ‘whether
dishonour of cheque will save limitation is academics’. Issues 3 and 5 are
answered accordingly.
70.The first defendant is the signatory of the cheque – Ex P-11 and he has signed
the cheque on behalf of the 2nd defendant partnership firm. Therefore, the
 other partners of the 2nd defendant firm are arrayed as defendants 3 and 4.
Hence, this court finds no legal error in joinder of parties. Issue No. 4 is
answered in negative.
71.As a result, for the reasons stated, the issues are held against the plaintiff and
the suit is dismissed with costs.