9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 2045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003. The present respondent had instituted a suit against the appellant/defendant in the trial court in the said O.S. No. 11/2003 seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 45,120/- with interest thereupon. 2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial court was that the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 26,000/- from him for his business purposes on date 20.01.2000 by executing on demand promissory note and consideration receipt, wherein, he had agreed to repay the said amount together with interest at the rate of 2% per month. Since the defendant failed to repay the loan amount with interest, inspite of several requests, reminders and issuance of legal notice to him by the plaintiff, the plaintiff was constrained to file original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the purpose of the on demand promissory note is also mentioned in letters wherein also corrections are shown to have been carried out. Both these corrections are shown to have been accompanied with corrective signatures by the scribe of the document, wherein one such corrective date appears as 20.01.2000. It is relying upon the corrections in the date portion of the promissory note at Ex-P1, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that material alteration has not been properly explained. As such, said document is not reliable. In this regard, he drew the attention of the Court to section 87 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Allampati Subba Reddy's case (supra). 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. 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 that a party having custody or control of a document produced in evidence must explain the alteration. When the instrument on its production appears to have been altered, it is a general rule that the party offering it in evidence must explain its appearance, because every alteration in the case of a negotiable instrument renders it suspicious. It is only reasonable that the party claiming 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 appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itness to the promissory note. The said witness who has supported the case of the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief including identifying his signature in the promissory note as witness at the conclusion of his cross-examination from the defendant's side has stated that none of the corrections in Ex-P1 and Ex-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 tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. As such, the said correction in the date at Ex-P1 cannot be called as material alteration without the consent of the defendant or the material alteration made otherwise than in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Ex-P1 and Ex-P2 in the light of the evidence of P.W.-1, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 since clearly establishes th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
