KANDASAMI MUDALIAR Vs. MUTHUKRISHNA MOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant in this second appeal against the reversing judgment in A.S.No.205 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, which dismissed his suit O.S.No.127 of 1979 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry for the recovery of a sum of Rs.6,055 due under Ex.A-1 promissory note executed by both the defendants in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE only question that is argued before me in this second appeal relates to the material alteration of Ex.A-1 promissory note. THE 2nd defendant remained ex parte.. According to the 1st defendant, the suit promissory note bears, only the date 12.2.1975, but it has been altered by the plaintiff to 12.2.1976. THE lower appellate court has found that there is such an alteration and it has also held that it is a material alteration within the meaning of Sec.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. THErefore, the lower appellate court has dismissed the suit since as per Sec.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, Ex.A-1 is a void document in view of the said material alteration.

(3.) FURTHER, the 1st defendant also marked Ex.B-1, which is draft copy of Ex.A-1 promissory note and that bears the date 12.2.1975 only and the lower appellate court also observes that the marking of Ex.B-1 was not objected to by the plaintiff and that on the contrary, by his suggestion to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff impliedly admitted the existence of the draft. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant argues that the existence of this draft Ex.B-1 was not adverted to in the written statement. But, on that ground, the genuineness of Ex.B-1 cannot be challenged when the plaintiff has not only chosen to object to the marking of the said document, but also put a suggestion to the 1st defendant in the witness box impliedly admitting the existence of the draft.