THOMMEN THOMMEN Vs. USAMIKHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT is the appellant. The suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1160/- due under Ext. P-1 promissory note dated 15 8 1952 alleged to have been executed by the defendant, though dismissed by the trial court, was decreed by the lower appellate court.

(2.) THOUGH the trial court found that the defendant received the sum of Rs. 1160/- as alleged by the plaintiff, it was of the view that Ext. P-1 was materially altered and dismissed the suit. The learned Judge also was of the view, that the defendant received the sum of Rs. 1160/- but he differed from the learned Munsiff and held that there were no alterations in Ext. P-l after its execution and even if there are any alterations they are not material alterations but were made only to carry out the common intention of the parties to the instrument.

(3.) AFFIXING of stamps to a promissory note after its execution without any stamp in order to make it a valid instrument for being sued upon is a material alteration within the meaning of S.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sir Charles Arnold White observed in Lakshmammal v. Narasimharaghava Aiyangar 1915 ILR. 38 Madras 746 at 749: