SHIVALINGAPPA Vs. P B PUTTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the Civil judge, Hassan, in Regular Appeal No. 74 of 1965, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Arsikere, in Original Suit No. 403 of 1963. The respondent-plaintiff brought the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2,635/-, which includes principal amount of Rs. 2,000/- and interest thereon. The suit is based on the pronote dated 9-2-1961 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which has been marked as Exhibit D-l in the present case. The defendant did not deny the execution and consideration of the pronote. He, however, pleaded discharge to the extent of Rs. 2,000/-. The defendant further took a specific stand that the pronote in question has been materially altered by the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that at the time of Navarathri in the year 1961, he paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff and made an endorsement on the back side of the pronote about the payment of the said sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that the said endorsement was made in pencil and not in ink, as no pen was available at that tuna The defendant has further stated that the plaintiff has erased the endorsement made by him and that is the material alteration of the pronote. Relying on the provisions of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. the defendant contended that the pronote has become void and unenforceable. The plaintiff denied the discharge pleaded by defendant to the extent of Rs. 2,000/-. He further asserted that no endorsement whatsoever, was made on the back of the pronote by the defendant. He also asserted that no erasure was made, as alleged by the defendant.

(2.) The learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiffs suit. He came to the conclusion that the pronote has been materially altered, as contended by the defendant. He appears to have come to the conclusion that the discharge pleaded by the defendant to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- was established,

(3.) The lower appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the pronote has not been materially altered. He held that the discharge pleaded to the extent of Rs. 2,000/- has not been satisfactorily established.