Judgment :- 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.153 of 1952 of the Court of the District Munsiff, Ettumannor, is the appellant in this second appeal. The facts of the case as summarised by the learned District Judge in the plaintiff's unsuccessful appeal to the District Court of Kottayam - A.S.No. 37 of 1955 - read as follows: "The second defendant drew five cheques on the Kottayam Bank Ltd, Ettumanoor branch, in the name of the first defendant who collected the amounts thereunder from the Ettumanoor Bank, the plaintiff being its proprietor. These cheques were dishonoured by the drawee, whereupon the plaintiff sued defendants I and 2, for the amounts paid under the cheques with interest. Both the defendants resisted the suit, but the second defendant, dropped from the contest after filing a written statement. The principal defence to the suit was, that no notice of dishonour had been issued by the plaintiff. The District Munsiff at Ettumannoor, passed a decree against the second defendant, but dismissed the suit against the first defendant, without cost in the circumstances. The decree against the second defendant has become final. The plaintiff has preferred this appeal for relief being granted against the first defendant." 2. Both the trial court and the learned District Judge in appeal held that the notices of dishonour alleged to have been given by the plaintiff were not proved, and in view of the concurrent finding on the subject, the only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant before us is that even in the absence of any notice of dishonour his client is entitled to succeed under S.98 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments, Act, 1881. 3. The learned District Munsiff discussed the evidence adduced and said: "Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I find that the plaintiff has not given notice of dishonour to the first defendant and that such notice of dishonour to the first defendant is necessary since he is a person who could suffer damage for want of notice of dishonour." - and the learned District Judge after going over the same ground: 'I, hold that the plaintiff has not sustained the onus of proof that no notice of dishonour is necessary to be given to the first defendant in the circumstances of this case". 4. 4. A 'cheque' as defined in S.6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is a 'bill of exchange' drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on 'demand' and S.93 of the Act provides: "When a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque is dishonoured by non-acceptance or non-payment, the holder thereof, or some party thereto who remains liable thereon, must give notice that the instrument has been so dishonoured to all other parties whom the holder seeks to make severally liable thereon, and to some one of several parties whom he seeks to make jointly liable thereon. Nothing in this section renders it necessary to give notice to the maker of the dishonoured promissory note or the drawee or acceptor of the dishonoured bill of exchange or cheque". S.98 details the cases in which a notice of dishonour is unnecessary and operates as an exception to the general rule laid down in S.93. 5. S.98 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provides that 'no notice of dishonour is necessary when the party charged could not suffer damage for want of notice.' As stated in Madhoram v. Durga Prasad I. L. R.33 All. 4. "If the plaintiff seeks to excuse the want of notice of dishonour it lies upon him to establish that the party charged could not suffer damage for want of such notice." To the same effect is Bahadur Chand Prabhu Dail v. Gulak Rai Nanak Chand A.I.R. 1929 Lahore 577. "It is the duty of the holder to prove that due notice was given, and if not given he was excused from doing so for any of the reasons specified in S.98. The omission to give due notice of dishonour has the effect of discharging the persons who are entitled to such notice." 6. We have been taken through the relevant evidence by the learned counsel for the appellant but are unable to say that the lower courts were wrong in holding that the burden has not been discharged. The indications in the evidence are that the financial position of the 2nd defendant was deteriorating and it is not possible to say that this is a case which comes within S.98 (c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 7. The five dishonoured cheques involved in this case are: Ext. A for Rs. 375, dated 6th October 1951; Ext. C for Rs. 7. The five dishonoured cheques involved in this case are: Ext. A for Rs. 375, dated 6th October 1951; Ext. C for Rs. 250, dated 13th October 1951; Ext. E for Rs. 350, dated 18th October 1951; Ext. G for Rs. 400, dated 27th October 1951; and Ext. J for Rs. 300, dated 3rd November 1951. Exts. B and D, dated 16th October 1951 are the memoranda from the Kottayam Bank Ltd., regarding Exts. A and C. The memorandum relating to Ext. E is Ext. F, dated 18th October 1951, to Ext G is Ext. H, dated 31st October 1951 and to Ext. J is Ext. K, dated 5th November 1951. If the plain-, tiff had taken action on receipt of Exts. B and D, the first defendant would not have accepted the subsequent cheques and the indebtedness of the 2nd defendant would not have been augmented to that extent. 8. In the light of our conclusion that the exemption provided by S.98 (c) is not available to the plaintiff, the second appeal has to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed with costs.