38.
The answer is: C
Explanation
The correct option is C: Against A only.
The reason is that a minor's agreement is void from the beginning and has no legal effect. Therefore, a minor cannot be held liable for any breach of contract or any tort arising out of contract. This means that X cannot enforce payment of the cheque against the minor, who is not bound by his own promise to pay for the TV.
However, A, who is a major and a competent party to contract, can be held liable for the cheque as he has indorsed it to X. An indorsement is a transfer of the right to receive payment under a negotiable instrument, such as a cheque, by signing one's name on the back of it. By doing so, A has made an implied promise to pay X in case the cheque is dishonoured by the minor's bank. This promise is independent of the original contract between A and the minor, and is not affected by the minor's incapacity. Therefore, X can enforce payment of the cheque against A only, who is bound by his own indorsement.
This principle was established in the case of Mohori Bibi v. Dharmodas Ghosh, where the Privy Council held that a minor's contract is void ab initio and cannot be ratified by him even after attaining majority. The court also held that the doctrine of estoppel does not apply to a minor, and that he cannot be held liable for any tort arising out of contract.