THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH SECOND APPEAL Nos.474, 565 and 591 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since similar questions arise for consideration in these Second Appeals, the same are heard and taken up together for disposal by way of common judgment. These appeals are directed against three separate orders, dated 03- 03-2010, passed in A.S.Nos.30, 46 and 47 of 2004 respectively on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. In all these appeals, the appellant is the 1st defendant and the 2nd respondent herein is the 2nd defendant in the suits in O.S.Nos.58, 59 and 60 of 2001, whereas the 1st respondent in all these appeals are the respective plaintiffs in the said suits. The respective plaintiffs filed the suits in O.S.Nos.58, 59 and 60 of 2001 respectively for recovery of the suit amount basing on Ex.A-1-cheque endorsed by the 2nd respondent herein in their favour. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. The plaintiffs are Financiers and yarn merchant dealers. Defendants 1 and 2 are doing cloth business. The 1st defendant is doing business at Ekambarakuppam and Chennai having properties at Ekambarakuppam. The 1st defendant issued three different post-dated cheques in favour of the 2nd defendant in discharge of his legal liability and the 2nd defendant in turn for his urgent necessity, got the said cheques discounted for valuable consideration with the plaintiffs by endorsing the said cheques in their favour. Thus, the plaintiffs became holders in due course. When the plaintiffs presented the said cheques for collection, the same were returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the said suits. The 1st defendant, who is common in all the suits, admitted about the business transactions between defendants 1 and 2 and stated that the said cheques issued in favour of the 2nd defendant are not meant for discount. The 2nd defendant, who is common in all the suits, admitted the plaint averments and stated that it is for the plaintiffs to recover the cheque amounts from the 1st defendant alone but not from the 2nd defendant, as the plaintiffs are holders in due course. The trial court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the said cheques were issued by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant discounted the said cheques by endorsing the same in favour of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the plaintiffs have got a right to enforce the said cheques, they being the holders in due course. Insofar as the defence taken by the 1st defendant that Ex.B-1- voucher issued by the father of the 2nd defendant as against the liability of Ex.A-1 cheque and that an undertaking said to have been given that the cheque will not be deposited without the consent of the 1st defendant, is concerned, admittedly, the 2nd defendant is not a party to Ex.B-1. Even, the father of the 2nd defendant was not examined to prove the contents of Ex.B-1. The trial court further held that the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are nothing to do with Ex.B-1 and therefore, the plea of the 1st defendant was not accepted and accordingly, decreed the suit for recovery of the suit amount granting interest @ 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization. Aggrieved by the same, the 1st defendant filed A.S.Nos.30, 46 and 47 of 2004 respectively before the III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The lower appellate court on re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence held that the 1st defendant issued three post-dated cheques in favour of the 2nd defendant and the 2nd defendant discounted the said cheques with the plaintiffs and when the plaintiffs presented the said cheques, the same were returned with an endorsement “insufficient funds”. Therefore, the 2nd defendant, having discounted the cheques, is not liable for want of notice under Section 93 read with Section 106 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the 1st defendant alone is liable, as the said cheques were dishonoured for want of amount in the account of the 1st defendant. Accordingly, it is held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the said amounts from the 1st defendant alone but not from the 2nd defendant. Insofar as awarding interest @ 12% per annum is concerned, there was no contention either before the trial court or the lower appellate court with regard to awarding of interest more than 6% per annum. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are businessmen. As the said transaction being commercial transaction, I am of the opinion that the trial court had rightly granted interest @ 12% per annum as per first proviso to Section 34 of CPC. Therefore, the same cannot be interfered with. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the trial court, after considering the oral and documentary, had rightly decreed the suits. Further, the lower appellate court, after reappraisal of the oral and documentary evidence, had rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the judgments and decrees passed by the trial court. In view of the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, I do not see any question of law, much less substantial question of law that arises for consideration in these Second Appeals. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 02-07-2010 Prv