K M BASAPPA Vs. PATEL MARULE GOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit filed by applts. for recovery of Rs. 727-5-6 from respa. under an on-demand-promissory note. The consideration for the pronote marked Ex. I is mentioned as Rs. 682 which the resps. owed in respect of transactions carried on with the applts. A sum of RS.. 264-7-0 realised by sale of areca left with the applts. by the resps. was deducted from the debt due under Ex. I & the amount claimed is alleged to be the balance due. The execution of the pronote & consideration therefor are admitted, but liability is disputed on the ground that the areca was worth more than the amount mentioned in the plaint & that there is a material alteration of the instrument. The trial Ct. negatived both these pleas & decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defts. the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit with costs.

(2.) The contention as regards the value of the areca cannot be properly advanced to avoid liability as it is not alleged that the pltfs. acted contrary to any understanding for its disposal. Having failed to fix any terms or even give instructions in this behalf, defts. cannot expeet the pltfs. to be custodians of the articles for an indefinite period. The pltfs. allege that the sale was effected with consent of the defts. & the sale list is signed by them. Defts. deny this. Whether it is true or not, the objection to the sale is, we think, highly belated & untenable.

(3.) The only point for consideration, therefore, is whether there is an alteration in the pronote such as to disentitle the pltfs. to seek payment. The body of the pronote is in print, the dates at the top & names of executants only being in manuscript. The date of execution is stated at the beginning to be 30-6-1940. At the foot of the pro-note & below the signature of defts. the figures 28 91940 are found.