9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Recovery of debt under on-demand-promissory note, dispute over liability due to alleged material alteration in the instrument. Analysis: The appeal in this case pertains to a suit filed by the appellants seeking recovery of a debt amounting to Rs. 727-5-6 from the respondents under an on-demand-promissory note. The consideration for the pronote is acknowledged, but the liability is contested based on the alleged overvaluation of areca and a material alteration in the instrument. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, but the Subordinate Judge, on appeal, dismissed the suit with costs. The dispute regarding the value of the areca is deemed insufficient to avoid liability as there was no agreement on its disposal terms. The sale of areca, allegedly conducted with the respondents' consent, was contested belatedly by the defendants, making their objection untenable. The main issue revolves around the alleged alteration in the pronote, specifically concerning the date of execution. The discrepancy in the date mentioned at the top and the figures at the bottom, indicating a different month, raises questions about the validity of the instrument. The court found that the alteration in the date was material, rendering the pronote void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The burden of proof regarding the alteration lies with the plaintiffs, who failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The court highlighted the plaintiffs' responsibility to maintain the integrity of the instrument and concluded that they were likely responsible for the alteration. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized that a materially altered document cannot be relied upon to enforce a debt obligation. Given the material alteration in the pronote, the court dismissed the appeal with costs. Additionally, the defendants' request to prosecute the plaintiffs for the alleged alteration was acknowledged, and notices were issued to the appellants to show cause against potential legal action.
|
