A SUBBA REDDY Vs. N RAMANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition arises out of a suit S.C.S. 143/62 instituted by the petitioner-plamtiif for the recevery of a sum of Rs. 1,864 on the foot of a promissory note dated 29-7-1959. The principal defence with which I am concerned in this revision petition was that the promissory note was not executed on 29-7-1959, but it was executed on 22-7-1959. It was contented by the defendant that in order to bring the suit within limitation, the plaintiff after erasing the figure '2' has re- written the figure '9' The lower Court after proper enquiry found that there has been a material alteration in the promissory note and that the date was changed from 22nd to 29th in order to bring the suit within limitation. The suit was tiled on 30th July, 1959, 29th being a holiday. The main contention of Mr. A. Kuppuswamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner; is that when the defendant even before inspecting the suit document took a stand that the promissory note was really executed on 22nd July, 1959 and not on 29th July 1959 and when in support of that contention he stated in his deposition that he has a diary with him, which was not produced, adverse inference ought to havo been drawn against him and it ought to have bean held that the suit promissory note was not materially altered and that it was really executed on 29th July 1959. After going through the judgment of Court below, I find that the lower Court has not believed the defendant's evidence in that behalf, and also did not believe the evidence adduced by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that the lower Court reached the conclusion after examining the promissory note that the figure '9' is re-wiitten after the old figure has been erased. In view of that suspicious nature of the document, it held that material alteration has taken place. I do not in these circumstances feel that the production of the diary could have any effect upon the suit. Even otherwise, the lower Court has disbelieved the defendant's evidence. It did not also believe the plaintiff'i evidence. The position therefore is that there is no eliable evidence on either side of the parties. A careful examination of the suit promissory note, however reveals that some figure was there in the place of '9', which was erased and the figure '9' was subsequently written upon it. Tint this is so is clear because at the place where erasure Las taken place, the thinning of the paper is clearly seen. That is why when figure '9' was written , the ink has spread. There can be no doubt that the lower court was correct in treating the document a.s suspicious in view of the abovesaid circumstance, When there is no evidence on either side explaining about this suspicious nature of the document, what course should the Court take is the real question which arises in the case. The law on the point seems to me to be clear. The English rule that material altatation of a date makes it altogether void is summarised thus in Halsbury's Laws of England, III Edition, Vol. II, page 367, paragraphs 598 and 599:-