The plaintiff must prove the execution of the cheque and the existence of consideration to invoke the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Additionally, the plaintiff must come with clean hands to the Court to seek a decree.

SANKARASUBBAN, J.:- Both these appeals are filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 258 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kottayam. A.S. No. 180 of 1991 is the appeal filed by the plaintiff, while A.S. No. 105 of 1991 is the appeal filed by the fourth defendant. The suit was filed for realisation of Rs. 2,06,985/-. The case of the plaintiff is as follows :

2. First defendant is a Partnership Firm carrying on the business of dealers in rubber in Paika. Defendants 2 to 6 are its partners and they are close relatives. The plaintiff was having dealings with the first defendant - Firm for more than 10 years. On a final settlement of accounts arrived at between the plaintiff and the first defendant represented by its partner the fourth defendant on 19-8-1985 the amount due to the plaintiff from the first defendant - Firm was settled at Rs. 2,06,985/-. The fourth defendant handed over to the plaintiff a cheque for the said amount drawn on Grindlays Bank, Wellington Island Branch, Cochin duly signed by the second defendant. When the cheque was presented on the request of the fourth defendant during the third week of October, 1985, it was dishonoured. The plaintiff approached the defendants on 15-10-1985 at their shop and informed them about the dishonour of the cheque. But the defendants did not care to settle the account. Hence, the suit was filed for return of the amount.

3. Defendants 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement. According to them, defendants 5 and 6 were not partners of the first defendant-Firm, as they had retired on 31-3-1985. There was absolutely no transaction or dealings between the plaintiff and the first defendant-Firm at any time. Hence there was no necessity or occasion to settle the accounts. No amount was due from the Firm to the plaintiff. The defendants came to know about the cheque only after institution of the suit and on verification from Court. The cheque is devoid of any consideration. The cheque was not issued to the plaintiff for any amount due from the first defendant-Firm. The first defendant-Firm is having its office and shop at Paika and the second defendant is the Managing Partner. He is residing at Nilamboor about 250 kms. away from Paika. The practice was that the second defendant would sign some blank cheque leaves affixing the seal of the Firm and leave station entrusting the same with the fourth defendant, who was also in charge of the shop along with the third defendant. The fourth defendant was allowed only to make use of the signed blank cheques for the transaction of the Firm. On enquiries, it was understood that one such cheque leaf was unauthorisedly handed over by the fourth defendant to the plaintiff. In the counter foil, it was endorsed that the cheque was cancelled. Subsequent enquiries revealed that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant were moving closely. The defendants were not informed about the dishonour of the cheque by the plaintiff.

4. Fourth defendant filed a separate written statement. It is stated that there was no dealings with the plaintiff and the first defendant at any time. There was no occasion or necessity for settlement of account as alleged. The fourth defendant had never issued or handed over any cheque to the plaintiff for and on behalf of the first defendant-Firm. The fourth defendant has not requested the plaintiff for presentation of the cheque in October, 1985. The second defendant, the Managing Partner of the first defendant-Firm alone was authorised to operate the accounts of the first defendant-Firm. As he was permanently settled at Nilamboor, the practice was that the second defendant would sign some blank cheque leaves affixing the seal of the Firm and leave station entrusting the same with the fourth defendant. The plaintiff and the fourth defendant were close friends. The plaintiff used to lend money to others. Since the plaintiff was an employee of the State Bank of Travancore, he could not have any money lendi