9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (2) TMI 12X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1500 remained unpaid and was to be paid to a creditor of the plaintiffs'. Maguni, who held a mortgage of some of their properties. It was alleged that the defendant did not pay the money to the creditor, who brought a suit. The plaintiffs further alleged that out of the sum of ₹ 1500 so due the defendant paid to them ₹ 305 and therefore the suit was for ₹ 1195 only and interest thereon. 2. The defence was that the entire consideration of ₹ 4000 was paid up. The defendant however admitted that there was an independent agreement between him and the plaintiffs to the effect that the plaintiffs would make over to him the village and the settlement papers of the properties sold and would help him in the realisat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 8th August 1917 from Hrudananda Sahu son of Maguni and would make it over to him, that is, the advocate, and that if he did not do so he would pay ₹ 1500. The document as it stands makes it an unconditional bond but both the Courts below have held that there was a condition attached to it by way of post script which has been torn off by the plaintiffs. 4. The next document is Ex. 2 which is supposed to be an adjusted account which shows that out of ₹ 1500 ₹ 205 was paid before and on the day when it was written, that is, 20th January 1933 another ₹ 100 was paid and the balance left was ₹ 1195. Here again, both the Courts below have found that at the end of the account the words Baki Debu which mean I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not a case in which a contract was independently made and later the defendant acknowledged it in some writing. Here the terms of the contract were reduced to writing at the same time when it was made. Therefore the document only, or if permissible, a secondary evidence of its contents, can be the only evidence available to the plaintiffs to prove their case. Now this document has been found by the Courts below to have been mutilated by the cutting off of a portion of it which embodied the conditions on which the payment was to be made. The effect of this is that the plaintiffs are not entitled to succeed. 7. The principle has been stated in Gogun Churider Ghose v. Dhuronidhar Mundul (1881) 7 Cal 616 , and is as follows: Where a man ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally, an alteration, and such change will invalidate the instrument against all parties not consenting to the change. This is a wholesome rule founded on sound policy and may be defended on two grounds, namely first that no man shall be permitted, on grounds of public policy, to take the chance of committing a fraud without running any risk of loss by the event when it is detected and secondly that by the alteration the identity of the instrument is destroyed, and to hold one of the parties liable under such circum-stances would be to make for him a contract, to which he never agreed. Now in the present case, on the finding of facts the document as it originally stood was a conditional promise to pay. By cutting off a portion it becomes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
