VENA MANA GOVINDASAMI NAIDU Vs. KUPPUSAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit to recover the price of goods sold and delivered for which defendant executed document A. The Subordinate Judge considered the clause therein which purports to reserve a claim under a former Katchat to be a subsequent and fraudulent interpolation and thereupon dismissed this snit with costs. Relying on the decision in Gogun Chunder Ghose v. Dhuronidhur Mundul,, I. L. R 7 C 616 he observed that the fraudulent addition to the document vitiated the whole claim. The alteration in regard to the former Katchat in no way tends to vary or enlarge the liability under the sales upon which this suit is based and it is therefore not material to the present claim, The intention was to rely on the alteration as evidence in support of a claim on prior sales which formed the subject of Small Cause Suit No. 473 of 1890, In the case reported in 7 Calcutta series, the alteration was material because it gave the bond there sued on an operation distinct from the operation it had in its original form. A document is not invalidated if an attestation is fraudulently added to it when such attestation is not necessary to its validity. The principle laid down by Campbell C.J. in Gardner v. Walsh,, 5 E & B 83 is that the defendant is discharged from his liability if the altered instrument, supposing it to be genuine, would operate differently from the original instrument. The fraudulent alteration must be relevant to the transaction sought to be enforced and not relate to a matter foreign to it. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and he is directed to restore the suit to his file and dispose of it on the merits. The costs of this petition will abide and follow the result and be provided for in the revised judgment.