The present appellant was the appellant in the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘Lower Appellate Court) in R.A.No.11/2006 and was also the defendant in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Srirangapatna (henceforth for brevity referred to as ‘trial court’) in O.S.No.11/2003. 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 suit in O.S.No.11/2003 against the defendant for recovery of the amount. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated 25.11.2005 decreed the suit against which, the defendant (appellant herein) preferred an appeal in the Lower Appellate Court in R.A.No.11/2006, which also came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dated 06.01.2007.

3. Thus suffering adverse orders by both the courts below, the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal.

4. In response to the notice, respondent is being represented by his counsel.

5. While admitting this matter, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law in this appeal:

i. Whether the Courts below are right in passing the judgment and decree, ignoring the submission of the appellant that there is a material alteration of the document Exhibit-P1? ;

ii. Whether the material alteration leads the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below to suffer from any infirmities?

6. The lower court records were called for and the same are placed before the Court.

7. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed before the Court including the impugned judgments and decrees.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant in his argument submitted that both the courts below have committed an error in not noticing the material alteration that has been made 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 AP 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, however, the thumb impressions found on said Ex-P1 and Ex-P2, which is consideration receipt, were referred to the Commissioner for his expert opinion. The said Commissioner in his opinion has opined that said thumb impressions found on those documents tallies with the specimen thumb impression of the defendant. As such, learned counsel for the appellant has not given any force in his argume