N NARAYANASWAMY Vs. MADANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1977 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, in R. A. No. 17 of 1974 on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree dated 4-8-1973 passed by, the 5th Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore in O.S. No. 207/72 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money under a pro note.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted a suit at 0. S. No. 207/72 on the file of the Munsiff on the averments that the defendant executed a pro note for valuable consideration on 28-1-1969 as per Ext. P. 1 for Rs. 2500/- agreeing to pay interest at 1 1/2% per mensem. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he received Rs. 600/-towards interest on 29-10-1970 and thereafter though he demanded the amount, he was not paid. Hence, he instituted suit for recovery of principal of Rs. 2500 and balance of interests of Rupees 750 and also the notice charges at Rs. 50.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing his written statement. He contended that the plaintiff and Shanthamma, wife of the defendant entered into an agreement to prepare and supply Uniform outfits to the Government Electric Factory as per tender and share the profits. The plaintiff required the defendant to execute a pro note as collateral security for the money advanced by him for the business. The business went on for some time. Accordingly the defendant executed a pro note only for collateral purpose. Hence, he denied the receipt of consideration. He further contended that in the printed form of pro note, the column 'interest' was left blank and subsequently the plaintiff altered materially the pro note by inserting the figure '11' in the blank and as such the pronote was rendered void.