9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with respect to the date of execution of the said document which is promissory note, upon which, the suit claim is based upon - the evidence of P.W.-4 scribe that he carried out the corrections in Ex-P1 in the presence of all and he read out those corrections to all on the same day when the document was executed gets support and corroboration by the consideration receipt at Ex-P2. Therefore, the said correction at Ex-P1 proves to have been made contemporaneously at the time of execution of the document and more so in the presence of the executant of the document. The substantial questions of law by holding that the courts below are right in passing the judgments and decrees and that the alleged material alteration does not lead the judgment and decree under appeal suffer from any infirmity - Regular Second appeal stands dismissed. - RSA No. 1369/2007 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2018 - THE HON BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY For the Appellant : K.M. Sanath Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : V.N. Madhava Reddy, Advocate JUDGMENT Dr. H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. 1. The present appellant was the appellant in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) JMFC, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade in the promissory note at Ex-P1, which goes to the root of the said document and nullifies the validity of the said document in the eye of law. Thus even after assuming that the said promissory note upon which the suit of the plaintiff was based upon was executed by the appellant herein, still in the absence of any convincing explanation regarding the material alteration made in it, the said document loses its reliability. As such, the courts below have committed an error in relying upon the said document and passing decrees against the appellant herein. 9. In his support, learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of ALLAMPATI SUBBA REDDY vs. NEELAPAREDDI RAMANAREDDI reported in AIR 1966 Andhra Pradesh 267. 10. Admittedly, the case of the plaintiff in the trial court was based upon the promissory note at Ex-P1 said to have been executed by the present appellant/defendant which is shown to have possessing date 20.1.2000. Even though the defendant in the trial court has taken a stand of total denial in his written statement denying the entire transaction including execution of the promissory note-Ex-P1, howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... harges his indorser from all liability to him in respect of the consideration thereof. The provisions of this section are subject to those of sections 20, 49, 86 and 125. 13. A reading of the said section go to show that if the party to the said Negotiable instrument has not given his consent for such material alteration or such material alteration was made, otherwise than in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties, in such event, that negotiable instrument is void as against the person who has not consented for such alteration. Thus ipso facto the material alteration in negotiable instrument does not make it void within itself. If the person producing and relying on that negotiable instrument satisfies the court that the person against whom the negotiable instrument is being enforced had his consent for such alteration or that the said alteration was made in order to carry out the common intention, then, such negotiable instrument would be still valid and binds the other party also. 14. The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Alampatti Subba Reddy case (supra) in para 8 has observed as below:- The general rule in English law followed in India is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P2 were carried out in his presence. However, P.W.-4 B.S. Shivalingegowda, the scribe of the said instrument in his cross-examination has stated that at two to three places in the promissory note, there are corrections for which he has put correction signatures. In his cross examination, at the end, he has further stated he has carried out the corrections in the promissory note in the presence of all persons present at that time and also has read out to all corrections that he has carried out. 18. P.W.-3 being the only witness has stated that corrections were not carried out in his presence. However, P.W.-4 claiming himself to be the scribe of both Ex-P1 and Ex-P2 has categorically stated regarding the total number of corrections that has been carried out in Ex-P1 and also he putting signatures with respect to those corrections in the very same document. Thus, it cannot be ignored that the alleged corrections in the date at Ex-P1 bears correction signatures of none else than the scribe of the instrument. 19. Secondly and more importantly, the entire case of the plaintiff is based on the on demand promissory note at Ex-P1 and consideration receipt at Ex-P2 which according to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
