Novation and lack of subsisting debt defeat cheque dishonour liability; concurrent acquittal left undisturbed in revision.

Chequebook liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not proved where the parties' arrangement had been altered and the complainant gave inconsistent evidence on delivery of possession. The court treated the changed payment terms as novation under the Contract Act and found that a legally enforceable debt was not shown to subsist when the cheque was presented. In view of these factual discrepancies and the concurrent acquittal below, revisional interference was refused and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was proved in the face of the parties' altered arrangement and the complainant's inconsistent version regarding delivery of possession, and whether the concurrent acquittal required interference in revision.

Analysis: The complainant's version shifted between the complaint, affidavit evidence, and cross-examination on the core question whether possession of the land had been delivered before the cheque was presented. The affidavits and surrounding circumstances indicated that the original understanding between the parties had been modified when registration of the sale deeds was delayed, and the payment arrangement was linked to delivery of possession. Such alteration of terms amounted to novation within the meaning of Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On the materials on record, the Court found that the complainant had not established, with sufficient certainty, that a legally enforceable debt subsisted when the cheque was deposited. In view of these disputed facts and the concurrent findings of the courts below, revisional interference was not warranted.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not disturbed and the revision challenge failed on the issue of legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent acquittal stood confirmed, while limited consequential directions were issued to bring the dispute to an end between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the evidence shows a subsequent novation of the parties' arrangement and the complainant fails to prove subsisting legally enforceable debt at the time of presentation of the cheque, liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not made out.

---