Judgment :- Defendants 1 and 2 in a suit for realisation of money are the appellants. The plaintiff filed the suit alleging that he is a holder in due course in respect of Exts.A1 and A2 cheques drawn on the Kozhencherry Branch of the Federal Bank Ltd. First defendant firm issued two post dated cheques in favour of the third defendant who endorsed it in favour of 4th defendant and who in turn discounted the same on 1-2-1977 and received the entire amount due thereunder. Plaintiff later presented these cheques for collection. The cheques were dishonoured by the bank stating that payment was stopped by drawer. According to the plaintiff first defendant being the drawer and defendants 3 and 4 being the endorsees are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the amount due under the two cheques. 2. Defendants land 2 filed a joint written statement, wherein they urged that 3rd defendant used to get post dated cheques from the first defendant with the specific understanding that the cheques will not be endorsed to any one or discounted. There cheques were without any consideration. These was further understanding between the first defendant and the 3rd defendant to the effect that the latter would pay to the first defendant the amount shown in the cheque in case it is presented for collection. This practice was known to the plaintiff. 3rd defendant being a business man was having several transactions and huge amounts were due to him from various parties and he too was also liable to pay amounts to others. The post dated cheques were issued by the first defendant to the 3rd defendant as a security for payment of amount due to him. Defendants 1 and 2 also contended that cheques were not negotiable and the plaintiff is not a holder in due course. The 3rd defendant filed written statement stating that there was no money dealing between himself and defendants 1 and 2 and the 4th defendant obtained these cheques in the name of the 3rd defendant. 3rd defendant would also contend that he signed the cheques at the instance of the 4th defendant and he was not aware of the discounting of the cheques. 4th defendant mainly contended that there was no proper notice of discounting. The court below decreed the suit against-defendants 1 to 4 with interest at 6% per annum. 3. 3rd defendant would also contend that he signed the cheques at the instance of the 4th defendant and he was not aware of the discounting of the cheques. 4th defendant mainly contended that there was no proper notice of discounting. The court below decreed the suit against-defendants 1 to 4 with interest at 6% per annum. 3. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that `jxts.A1 and A2 cheques are not negotiable instruments within the definition of S.13 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellants 'contention is that at the time when these two cheques were issued the drawer of the cheque, viz, the first defendant scored off the word "bearer" and thereby indicating that the intention of the drawer is that it shall not be transferable and therefore it is not a negotiable instrument as defined in the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short the Act). The question to be considered is whether the mere scoring off the word "bearer" will make the instrument non-transferable and the endorsee therein will not become a holder in due course. 4. The term cheque has been defined in Clause 6 of the Act, as follows: "A "cheque" is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand." A bill of exchange has been defined in clause 5 of the Act. Explanation 1 to S.13 of the Act is very important. It is to the following effect: "13. "Negotiable instrument" --(1) xx xx XX XX XX XX Explanation (1)-A promissory note, Bill of exchange or cheque is payable to order which is expressed to be so" payable or which is expressed to be payable to a particular person and does not contain words, prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable." In the instant case there are no words in Exts. Al and A2 cheques which expressly prohibit transfer or indicating an intention that it shall not be transferable. I am unable to accept the contention of the appellants' counsel that the scoring of the word "bearer" is sufficient to spell out an intention of the drawer that the instrument shall not be transferable. DW1 deposed that at the time when exts. I am unable to accept the contention of the appellants' counsel that the scoring of the word "bearer" is sufficient to spell out an intention of the drawer that the instrument shall not be transferable. DW1 deposed that at the time when exts. Al and A2 cheques were issued there was an understanding between the 3rd defendant and the first defendant that the cheque will not be endorsed in favour of others. The plaintiff is not bound by any such understanding between the first defendant and the 3rd defendant. The plaintiff cannot be attributed with the knowledge of such an understanding between the first defendant and the 3rd defendant. The two cheques issued by the first defendant could only be construed as cheques payable to order and hence they are negotiable instruments as defined in the Act. If the first defendant wanted to make the cheque not negotiable, he should have indicated his intention by crossing the cheque and writing "not negotiable". The drawer could have made the instrument not negotiable by writing "payable only to the payee" named therein. The first defendant is a banking concern and it cannot be assumed that the first defendant intended to make the document not negotiable by merely scoring off the word "bearer". The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there are no specific words in the cheque "to the order of and therefore the instrument is '.not "payable to order". This contention cannot be accepted, in view of explanation(1) to S.13. In the case of a pronote a question of similar nature came up for consideration in Ahammed v. Appukutty (AIR 1962 Kerala 189). It was held that the absence of expression "or to the order of does not render documents any the less a promissory note. The decision reported in Jagjivandas v. Gumanbhai A.I.R.1967 Guj.1) also took the same view. In that case the promissory note contained the words "whenever you demand". The court held that this did not restrict its negotiability and it was a pronote within the meaning of S.4 of the Act. 5. The finding of the court below that the two cheques are negotiable instruments and the plaintiff is a holder in due course is correct and the suit has been rightly decreed by the court below. The appeal is without any merit and the same is dismissed with costs.