ADAPA BABY SAROJINI Vs. RAVULAPATI CHANDRASEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.78/90 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam.

(2.) The plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The suit is based on a promissory note to recover Rs.8,000/. with interest at 12% per annum. The plaintiff stated that the defendant is an employee and he is not entitled to the benefit of Act 45/87. The defendant denied that he borrowed any amount under the promissory note. His case is that one Kalepalli Chalapathi Rao, uncle of the defendant is working in B.E.L. He obtained his signature on the blank promissory note with revenue stamps of Rs.0.15 ps., and Rs.0.05 ps., affixed to the said blank note. Subsequently, the pronote was got filled in by the said Chalapathi Rao in the name of the plaintiff. His further case is that the pronote is materially altered by affixing additional revenue stamps. There is no proper cancellation of the stamps. Hence, the pronote is not admissible in evidence.

(3.) The Trial Court considered two points 22 (i) Whether the defendant executed the promissory note; and (ii) Whether the said pronote is materially altered and to what relief. The Lower Court considered the evidence on record. It believed the evidence of PWs. and 2. PW.1 is the husband of the plaintiff. PW.2 is the attestor of Ex.A.1. According to their evidence the defendant borrowed Rs.8,000/. and subscribed his signature on Ex.A.1.Therefore, the Lower Court held that the suit pronote is proved. On Point No.2, the Lower Court held that there is material alteration and therefore held that the suit pronote is not admissible in evidence. In the result, the suit was dismissed with costs.