SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. T P SRINIVASA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff Seethalakshmiammal is the appellant whose suit has been dismissed with costs.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.12,712.50 said to be due on a promissory note executed by the defendant Srinivasa Naicker. THE plaintiff's case is that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.15.000 from the plaintiff on 14.9.1964 and executed the suit promissory note Ex.A-1 agreeing to repay the said amount with interest at 12% per annum. THE defendant paid a sum of Rs.1,000 on 10.11.1966, a sum of Rs.2,200 on 4.11.1969 and Rs.1,000 on 3.1.1972 and made endorsements in his own handwriting on the reverse of the suit promissory note. Inspite of several demands by the plaintiffs the defendant has not paid the balance amount. THErefore the suit. THE further case of the plaintiff is that since the defendant is an agriculturist he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Debt Relief Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 8 of 1973 and therefore interest is claimed as per that Act.

(3.) THE trial court on consideration of the evidence held that on 3.1.1972 the defendant as contended by him has paid a sum of Rs.6,000 and not Rs.1,000 only as is pleaded by the plaintiff and in the endorsement made therefor on the back of the promissory note the plaintiff has made alterations and this would amount to material alteration of the promissory note and hence it is hit by Sec.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THE trial court further found that as contended by the defendant the entire interest amount has been paid up to 3.1.1972 and if that amount is adjusted towards the principal as provided under Act 4 of 1938 as amended by Act 8 of 1973 there would be no amount payable by the defendant. On these findings the trial court dismissed the suit.