Judgment:
1. This appeal is filed by plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 in O.S.No. 498 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichur. Respondents 1 to 4 herein are defendants 1 to 4 in that suit, which was filed for realisation of interest.
2. The appellants 1 to 3 and the predecessor in interest of appellants 4 to 6 owned 0.4075 hectares of land in Sy.No. 962/1-5 in Chembukkavu village in Trichur Taluk. These lands were acquired by the 1st respondent for the purpose of setting up of Microwave station. The 4th respondent passed an award No.2/1989 on 6.7.1989 awarding the appellants 1 to 3 and the predecessor of the appellants 4 to 6, a sum of Rs.18,42,741/- as compensation, solatium etc. A cheque drawn on the Treasury was issued to them on 19.7.1989 and on the same day the cheque was presented for collection through Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., Main Branch Trichur. On the same day the cheque was presented for payment at the Treasury. The 3rd respondent returned the cheque unpaid on 28.7.1989 for want of intimation to the Treasury for making the payment and for want of clearance from the Finance Department since the amount involved was more than Rs.1 lakh. The 1st appellant expended Rs.850/- and went over to Trivandrum in order to get clearance from the Finance Department. The appellants ultimately got the money only on 17-8-1989. A notice contemplated under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was sent to the respondents claiming 18% interest as the amount of compensation for the delayed period and Rs.850/- towards expenses incurred by the appellants in order to get the amount. The suit was filed claiming a sum of Rs.26,353.72 being interest for 29 days, Rs.850/- towards travelling expenses and Rs.100/- towards notice charges and future interest on the amounts claimed.
3. Defendants filed joint written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable under law. The acquisition of the land was completed and an award was passed for an amount of Rs.18,42,741/- and cheque No.129939 dated 19.7.1989 for the said amount was issued to the 2nd plaintiff, C. J. Johnson. On the same day intimation was also issued to the District Treasury Officer since the amount of compensation exceeded Rs.1,00,000/-. A letter dated 19.7.1989 along with the prescribed proforma was issued to the Commissioner and Secretary, Finance Department, Trivandrum requesting the issuance of the clearance Certificate for the above cheque amount. As per letter No.57985/WM.T14/89/Fin. dated 4.8.1989, the District Treasury Officer was requested by the Commissioner and Secretary, Finance Department to clear the cheque on or before 14.8.1989 and the matter was duly informed to the plaintiff. Thus the amount was collected by the 2nd plaintiff on 17.8.1989 in full and final settlement of the Award amount.
4. Since there was no dereliction of duty or delay in prompt follow up action from the officers concerned, the plaintiffs are not entitled to get any amount as claimed in the notice and also prayed for in the plaint. The plaintiffs are also not entitled to get any amount by way of damages or travelling allowances. The notice issued by the plaintiffs is not in compliance with the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure. There was absolutely no necessity for the plaintiffs to go over Trivandrum as to collect the Clearance Certificate. The defendants have acted promptly and diligently in discharge of their official duties and the delay, if any, caused is negligible and it amounts to only bonafide official delay which was unavoidable. So the plaintiffs are not entitled to get the interest of the amount as claimed for. The plaintiffs did not suffer any loss and not entitled to get any amount as damages and prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
5. In the Sub Court PW1 and DW1 were examined and Exts.A1 to A4, B1 and B2 were marked. The learned Sub Judge, on considering the evidence, found that there was no delay on the part of the defendants in intimating the Treasury and the Finance Department for getting the clearance of the cheque amount in question and the suit was dismissed without cost. Against that judgment and decree plaintiffs 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 filed this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the cheque for Rs.18,42,741/- was received by the appellants on 19.7.1989 but the appellants received the amount from the Treasury only on 17.8.1989 and therefore, the appellants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 18% p.a. as per Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the delayed payment. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act provides for interest at the rate of 9% p.a. in case the amount is not paid or deposited from the date of taking possession till it is paid or deposited. The above Section also provides that in case the amount is not paid or deposited within a period of one year from the date on which possession is taken, interest at the rate of 15% p.a. is payable. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that as per the above provisions the appellants are entitled to get interest till the actual date of payment of compensation.
8. The first plaintiff is examined as PW1. He deposed that the plaintiffs obtained cheque for the compensation amount for the acquired land on 19.7.1989 and that the cheque was presented for encashment through Catholic Syrian Bank on the same day and that the cheque was returned from the Treasury on 28.7.1989 stating that the cheque could not be encahsed for want of clearance from the finance Department. PW1 deposed that the plaintiffs received Ext.A2 clearance from the Finance Department on 12.8.1989 and the cheque was re-presented on 17.8.1989, which was encashed on 19.8.1989.
9. Plaintiffs sent section 80 C.P.C. notice to the defendants on 15.1.1990 after getting the amount due under the cheque. The Assistant Treasury Officer of Trichur was examined as DW1. He deposed that the cheque in question was presented before the Treasury on 28.7.1989 and that the cheque could not be encahsed due to Treasury ban. DW1 deposed that the plaintiffs re-presented the cheque on 16.8.1989 before the Treasury after getting special sanction from the Government and the cheque was encashed on 17.8.1989. Therefore it is clear that the plaintiffs received the cash within one month from the date of issue of the cheque and there is no delay from the side of the defendants for encashment of the cheque.
10. Section 105 of the Negotiable Instrument Act provides that in determining what is the reasonable time for the presentment for acceptance or payment, for giving notice of dishonour and for noting, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument and the usual course of dealing with respect to similar instruments; and, in calculating such time, public holidays shall be excluded.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that delay in encashment of cheque is reasonable. Therefore, the learned Sub Judge is perfectly justified in dismissing the suit. The result is that the appeal has to be dismissed, as it is without any merit.
12. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dismissing O.S.No. 498 of 1990 on the file of the Sub Court, Trichur are confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective cost in this appeal.