RANCHHOD RAGHUNATH PATEL Vs. RAVJIBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs alleged in the plaint that the defendant had borrowed Rs. 2,000 from Plaintiff No. 1 as guardian of Plaintiff No. 2 in Aso 1974, and the defendant in respect of this liability had executed a promissory note in favour of Plaintiff No. 1 in Uttarsanda on October 10, 1918 (the 5 of Aso Sud, 1974). A certain amount had been paid in 1920, and after giving credit to defendant for what had been paid, the plainttiffs claimed a balance.

(2.) The document signed by the defendant appears to us to come within the definition of a promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was conceded that the Plaintiff No. 1 by adding the words "the guardian of Patel Shanabhai Ashabhai a minor" made a material alteration which prevented him from suing on the note. The suit was dismissed on this ground by the trial Judge, who at the same time found on the issue of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs. The appeal was summarily dismissed by the District Judge, who said: Two questions are raised : one is whether the alteration is not material, and secondly, whether the appellants can be allowed to sue on the original consideration, ignoring the altered note. The appellant fails on both these contentions and I dismiss this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code. The appellant is correct in his argument that the promissory note in suit is not a negotiable instrument. The case is not governed by any section of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but by general principles of law, and those general principles of law are nowhere more definitely laid down than in the case quoted by the lower Court : Gour Chandra Das V/s. Prasanna Kumar Chandra [1906] 33 Cal. 812.

(3.) I do not quite understand what the Judge means by saying that this document is not negotiable instrument. He still calls it a promissory note thereafter in his judgment. But admitting that the document cannot be sued on, the question is, whether sufficient is left in the plaint to found a suit. It was held in Krishnaji v. Rajmal [1900] 24 Bom. 360 that where there is an independent admission of a loan, the holder of a hundi, bill or note, which is defective and inadmissible in evidence for want of a stamp, may still sue, on the consideration, the person to whom he gave it, though he cannot use the bill in support of his suit.