TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 72X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in order to bring the suit within limitation the plaintiff after erasing the figure '2' has rewritten the figure '9'. 2. The lower Court after proper enquiry found that there lias been a material alteration in the promissory note and that the date was changed from 22nd to 29th in order to bring the suit within limitation. The suit was filed on 30th July 1959, 29th being a holiday. 3. The main contention of Mr. A. Kuppuswamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that when the defendant even before inspecting the suit document took a stand that the promissory note was really executed on 22nd July, 1959 and not on 29th July 1959 and when in support of that contention he stated in his deposition that he has a dia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... treating the document as suspicious in view of the above said circumstance. When there is no evidence on either side explaining about this suspicious nature of the document what course should the Court take is the real question which arises in the case. 5. The law on the point seems to me to be clear. The English rule that a material alteration of a date makes it altogether void is summarised thus in Halsbury's Law's of England III Edition, Vol. 11. p. 367, Paras. 598 and 599:- 598. A writing proposed to be executed as a deed may be altered by erasure or interlineation or in any other way before it is so executed; and any alteration so made before execution does not affect the validity of the deed. Any alteration, erasure o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t any and every alteration that avoids the instrument. To have that effect the alteration must be in a material particular. A material alteration can be brought about by change of date or time of drawing or of the place of payment or by change in the sum payable, etc., etc. It is thus evident that the date of a promissory note is a material portion of it, and any alteration of such date will naturally avoid the promissory note, unless, of course, as stated in the Section, such an alteration is made with the consent of the other party, or is made to effectuate the common intention of the original parties. It is wrong to assume that the date of the promissory note is merely a description. It indicates the time when the promissory note was exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g under it should remove the suspicion. It is true that it is not on every occasion that a party tendering an instrument in evidence is bound to explain any material alteration that appears upon its face. He must, however, explain when he is seeking to enforce it. It is plain that when the alteration appears to have been made contemporaneously with the document, or if it is made at some subsequent period with the privity of the parties charged and there is no fraud, it does not affect the validity of the instrument. 9. It is thus evident that where the instrument appears to be altered it is incumbent upon the holder, that is, the plaintiff, to show that the alteration is not improperly made. It is now fairly settled that in case of negot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote that the presumption under the English Law is that in the case of deeds signed and sealed, alterations were made before execution, but no such presumption exists in the case of negotiable instruments. The law on the subject has been thus stated in the Halsbury's Laws of England, III Edition, Vol. 11, Para. 622, p. 379:-- A writing which is intended to be under hand only can be altered by erasure, or interlineation, or otherwise, before it is signed, but it lies upon the party who puts the instrument in suit to explain an alteration and show when it was made. That being the position of law as I understand if, let me see whether any explanation was offered by the plaintiff about the suspicious nature of the suit promissory n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
