The main legal point established in the judgment is the definition and consequences of material alteration in a negotiable instrument under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from a suit filed by applts. for recovery of Rs. 727-5-6 from respa. under an on-demand-promissory note. The consideration for the pronote marked Ex. I is mentioned as Rs. 682 which the resps. owed in respect of transactions carried on with the applts. A sum of RS. . 264-7-0 realised by sale of areca left with the applts. by the resps. was deducted from the debt due under Ex. I and the amount claimed is alleged to be the balance due. The execution of the pronote and consideration therefor are admitted, but liability is disputed on the ground that the areca was worth more than the amount mentioned in the plaint and that there is a material alteration of the instrument. The trial Ct. negatived both these pleas and decreed the suit, but on appeal by the defts. the learned Subordinate Judge has dismissed the suit with costs.

( 2 ) THE contention as regards the value of the areca cannot be properly advanced to avoid liability as it is not alleged that the pltfs. acted contrary to any understanding for its disposal. Having failed to fix any terms or even give instructions in this behalf, defts. cannot expeet the pltfs. to be custodians of the articles for an indefinite period. The pltfs. allege that the sale was effected with consent of the defts. and the sale list is signed by them. Defts. deny this. Whether it is true or not, the objection to the sale is, we think, highly belated and untenable.

( 3 ) THE only point for consideration, therefore, is whether there is an alteration in the pronote such as to disentitle the pltfs. to seek payment. The body of the pronote is in print, the dates at the top and names of executants only being in manuscript. The date of execution is stated at the beginning to be 30-6-1940. At the foot of the pro-note and below the signature of defts. the figures 28 9-1940 are found.

( 4 ) THE date at the top has to be ignored as it is not the case of either party that the pronote was then executed and both agree that the figures at the bottom are to be treated as furnishing the date of actual execution. But there is difference between the parties about the figure denoting the month, as according to the pltfs. it is 9' which would make it 'september' and 6' according to the defts. fixing it as 'june'. The figure appears to be undoubtedly changed, unlike the other figures, from its original form and does not seem to have been inserted at first as V. It is not clear as to how and by whom this was meddled with. (After discussing the evidence, the judgment proceeded.) The deft. 's statement that it was on 28-6-1940 that they executed the pronote after the accounts were taken up to end of June is nearer the truth than pltfs. If the true date of execution was 28-6-1940 as we think it was, the date 28-9-1940 now found must be held to be an alteration.

( 5 ) IT remains to see whether the alteration affects the rights of parties and the suit is maintainable. Section 87, Negotiable Instruments Act, states :

"any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against any one who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties. "

The section does not mention as to what constitutes "material alteration" but Section 64 in the english Bills of Exchange Act which corresponds to this specifies. . .

" (2) In particular the following alterations are material namely any alteration of the date, the sum payable, the time of payment, place of payment. . . "

In Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 10, p. 227 it is said

"a material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties as ascertained by the deed in its original state, or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as originally expressed. . . . The effect of making such an alteration without the consent of the party bound is exactly the same as that of canc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document