BHIKA LAL Vs. RATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note accompanied with a receipt. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the promissory note and the receipt have been materially altered and as such they are void and inadmissible in evidence under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(2.) THE plaintiff came with the case that the defendant Ratia was the 'Karta' of the Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and his sons Rama, Chela and Sakia and that the defendant Ratia borrowed a sum of Rs. 501/ - from the plaintiff and executed promissory note and receipt on April 23, 1969. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that though in the promissory note as well as in the receipt the names of the sons of Fatia were mentioned but both these documents were executed by the defendant Ratia alone. The defendant Ratia in his statement denied both the execution as well as consideration. He also denied that there was and Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and his sons at the time when the promissory note is alleged to have been executed by him. According to him his son Rama separated from him long ago and his son Chela expired in Samvat year 2015. He also said that on the date of the promissory note his son Sakia was a minor. The defendant took several other pleas in defence. One of them was that the promote and the receipt were materially altered as there was apparent over writing in. the promissory note and the receipt. It was further pleaded that the ink used in filling up several blank spaces in the printed promissory note and receipt was different. The trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 11 issues. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties the trial court decided all the issues in favaur of the plaintiff except issue No. 7 which runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... The burden of this issue was put on the defendant. It appears that no evidence was led by the defendant in respect of issue No. 7. it was however, argued before the trial by the learned Counsel for the defendant that material alterations in the promissory note and the receipt were apparent on bare perusal of the said documents and as such in view of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence. The learned Counsel of the plaintiff in reply so this argument referred to the statement of the plaintiff Bhika Lal. The relevant portion of his statement runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... The explanation for overwriting furnished by the plaintiff was disbelieved by the trial court and it was held that tie overwriting appearing between E to F in the promissory note as well as in the receipt amounted to material alteration and as such the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence. The portion between E to F on which overwriting appears on the promissory note as well as on the receipt runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... Since the trial court held that overwriting on the aforesaid words appearing in the promissory note and receipt amounted to material alteration, it dismissed the suit.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The plaintiff in his statement explained the cuase for existence of over writing in portion E to F in the promissory note and the receipt. By furnishing this explanation the plaintiff wanted to show that this over writing was made prior to signing of the said documents by the defendant. Since both the courts below have disbelieved his explanation it is not open for me in revisional jurisdiction to take a contrary view. I have carefully examined the promissory note and the receipt particularly portion E to F in both these documents, and I find that there is over writing in the sense that the words already appearing between E to F in the promissory note and receipt were rewritten over the same words. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove that the said over writing was made before the execution of these documents and with the consent of the defendant Ratia, a presumption arises that overwriting in these documents was made after the execution of the said two documents by the defendant.