The main legal point established in the judgment is that any material alteration in a negotiable instrument, as defined under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, renders the instrument void.

1. This appeal by the defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20-4-1977 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, in R. A. No. 17 of 1974 on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree dated 4-8-1973 passed by, the 5th Additional First Munsiff, Bangalore in O.S. No. 207/72 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money under a pro note.

2. The plaintiff instituted a suit at 0. S. No. 207/72 on the file of the Munsiff on the averments that the defendant executed a pro note for valuable consideration on 28-1-1969 as per Ext. P. 1 for Rs. 2500/- agreeing to pay interest at 1 1/2% per mensem. It is further the case of the plaintiff that he received Rs. 600/-towards interest on 29-10-1970 and thereafter though he demanded the amount, he was not paid. Hence, he instituted suit for recovery of principal of Rs. 2500 and balance of interests of Rupees 750 and also the notice charges at Rs. 50. The suit was resisted by the defendant by filing his written statement. He contended that the plaintiff and Shanthamma, wife of the defendant entered into an agreement to prepare and supply Uniform outfits to the Government Electric Factory as per tender and share the profits. The plaintiff required the defendant to execute a pro note as collateral security for the money advanced by him for the business. The business went on for some time. Accordingly the defendant executed a pro note only for collateral purpose. Hence, he denied the receipt of consideration. He further contended that in the printed form of pro note, the column 'interest' was left blank and subsequently the plaintiff altered materially the pro note by inserting the figure 11' in the blank and as such the pronote was rendered void.

3. The trial Court raised the following issues as arising for consideration in the suit :

(1) Whether the defendant proves that no consideration has passed under the pro note?

(2) Whether the pro note was brought under the circumstances mentioned in para 2 of the written statement?

(3) Whether the plaintiff has tampered with the pronote and, hence the suit is not maintainable as alleged in para 6 of the written statement.

(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest and if so, at what rate?

(5) What is found due?

(6) What order?

(7) What decree?

4. During hearing the plaintiff examined himself in support of the plaint averments and defendant examined himself and his wife. The plaintiff got marked Ext. P-1 pro note and the defendant got marked Ext. D-1 agreement regarding supply of cloth. The learned Munsiff appreciating the evidence on record answered issues 1, 2 and 3 in the negative. He answered issue No. 4 in the affirmative and held that the interest stipulated was 11/2% per mensem and in that view he decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant went up in appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Bangalore in R.A. 17/74 as stated above. The learned Civil Judge, in the course of his judgment, raised the following points as arising for his consideration: (1) Whether the suit pronote is not supported by consideration? (2) Whether the suit pronote is materially altered?

6. The learned Civil Judge, reassessing the evidence on record, held that the suit pronote was supported by consideration and the said pronote was not materially altered as alleged by the defendant and in that view he dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant has come up in the above second appeal before this Court.

7. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-defendant strenuously urged before me that the courts below were not justified in coming to the conclusion that the said pronote was not materially altered, He further submitted that the courts below ought to have held that no consideration flowed under the pronote as it was executed only