ACHUTHAN RAGHAVAN Vs. VARKEY VARIATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Second Appeal by the defendant, arising out of a suit on a promissory note, the two courts have concurrently held, that the plaintiff is not entitled to enforce payment, on account of a material alteration in it. Nevertheless they have decreed the suit as on the original consideration for the promissory note. It was contended on behalf of the defendant that the suit being laid on the promissory note only, no such decree could have been passed. The law is clear, that where the suit is on the promissory note only, no decree could be granted on the original consideration. Firm Tarachand v. Tamijuddin, AIR 1935 Calcutta 658, is a case in point.

(2.) It was argued that the allegations in the plaint show, that the suit was also on the original consideration. In Para.4 of the plaint it was stated that the suit was upon the promissory note, and in Para.5 it was alleged, that on receipt of the sum of Rs. 575/- on July 21, 1952, the promissory note was executed undertaking to repay the amount with interest. These are all the relevant allegations in the plaint. I am unable to hold on the above allegations, that the suit was laid also on the original consideration.

(3.) But the lower court has relied on Chimanlal v. Saviji Bechar, AIR 1955 Saurashtra 74, which has laid down the law as follows:-