K RAMRAJ Vs. NARASIMHA DASS GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.384 of 1977 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Coimbatore, is the petitioner in this revision. The respondent is the plaintiff. The plaintiff laid the suit for recovery of amount due under a promissory note bearing the date 20th April, 1974. The suit on the promissory note had come to be laid on 14th April, 1977. The defendant contested the suit mainly putting forth two contentions. One is that there is material alteration of the date of the suit promissory note which was executed only on 20th March, 1974, and not on 20th April, 1974, and the other is that he is entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 and Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1978. The parties placed their evidence, oral and documentary and that was the subject-matter of assessment by the first court and it countenanced the pleas of the defendant that there was material alteration of the suit promissory note and in any event the defendant is entitled to the benefits of only Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976 and not the other Act. As a result, the suit was dismissed, but without costs. The plaintiff appealed and the appellate court opined the other way about it and it rejected the aforesaid pleas of the defendant and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court are being put in issue in this revision.

(2.) Mr. R.Arunagirinathan, learned counsel for the defendant, petitioner herein would submit that the plaintiff, examined as P.W.I, had admitted that the month originally written in the suit promissory note was erased and the month 'April' was written and so also, on the Revenue stamps the month '3' was corrected as '4�. On this basis, the learned counsel submits that when once it has become evident that the suit promissory note suffers an alteration in respect of the date, which is a material alteration, the plaintiff must explain as to when and how this alteration was made and, in the absence of such explanation, the suit promissory note must be deemed to have suffered a material alteration under section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, hereinafter referred to as the Act. For this submission, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. in Subba Reddi v. Neela Pareddi, (1966)1 An.W.R. 141: A.I.R.1966 A.P.267. Further, learned counsel would submit that on the question of the defendant being entitled to the benefits of Tamil Nadu Act 31 of 1976, the appellate court has not properly assessed the evidence placed in the matter and has wrongly cast the onus of proof on the defendant.

(3.) As against the above submission made by the learned counsel for the defendant, Mr.R.T.Doraiswami, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, respondent herein, would submit that no suggestion was put to the plaintiff, examined as P.W.1, that the alteration was made after the execution of the suit promissory note and the defendant did not even care to reply to the suit notice issued as per Ex.A-2 and in the said circumstances, as per section 118(b) of the Act, the suit promissory note must be presumed to have been executed on the date which it bears.