(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether correction of the date of a payment endorsement found on the other side of a promissory note, constitutes a material alteration of the promissory note itself so as to entail dismissal of the suit based on it even when the payment endorsement is not relied upon by the plaintiff to save the suit from the bar of limitation.
(2.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note Ex. A-1 dated 17-4-1969 alleged to have been executed by the defendant-appellant in favour of Yeramati Narayana Murthy (P.W. 2), who transferred it for collection in favour of the Plaintiff under Ex. A-2 endorsement dated 30-6-1969. There is a payment endorsement also on the other side of the paper on which the promissory note was engrossed and this endorsement dated 15-10-1971 for Rs. 100/- was marked as Ex. A-3 in the trial court. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant failed to pay the amount due under the suit promissory note inspite of demands by registered notice and otherwise and that he is therefore obliged to file the suit.
(3.) The appellant resisted the suit denying having executed Ex. A-1 or the payment endorsement (Ex. A-3) and contending that they are all forged for the purpose of making an unlawful profit.