9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are whether the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 8,000 from the plaintiff and executed a pro-note, and whether the suit pro-note is genuine, true, and supported by consideration. Judgment Details: 1. The suit was filed for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,000 under a pro-note executed on 23-4-1974. The defendant's defense was that he had no need to borrow the amount and that the pro-note was materially altered. The court found in favor of the plaintiff on both issues and decreed the suit. 2. In the appeal, a contention was raised that the pro-note was materially altered, making it void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellate court rejected this contention, stating that the burden to prove material alteration was on the defendant, who failed to do so. 3. In the Second Appeal, the appellant argued that the consideration under the pro-note did not pass and that the date on the pro-note was inserted later, rendering the instrument void. Sections 87 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were cited in support of this argument. 4. The court observed that the date on the pro-note was a subsequent insertion, constituting a material alteration. It was emphasized that the burden of proving no alteration lies on the party in custody of the document post-execution. 5. Citing case law and statutory provisions, the court held that the material alteration in the pro-note rendered it void. The court declined to consider the passing of consideration, as the instrument was deemed void due to alteration. 6. The appellant's contention that reliance could be placed on another document (Ex. A. 2) was rejected, emphasizing that the pro-note was the sole basis for the claim. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant undertook not to recover amounts paid under interim orders. 7. The court's decision was based on the finding of material alteration in the pro-note, leading to its voidness, and the lack of alternative allegations for recovery. The appeal was allowed without costs, and the amounts paid need not be returned to the respondent.
|
