An endorsement on the back of a pronote does not form part of the negotiable instrument and any alteration in the said endorsement does not attract the penal provisions of S. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the decree passed by the civil Judge, Hassan, in RA, No. 74 of 1965, reversing the decree passed by the Munsiff, Arasikere, in O. S. No. 403 of 1963. The respondent plaintiff brought the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 2,635-00, which includes principal amount of Rs. 2,000-00 and interest thereon. The suit is based on the pronote dated 9-2-1961 executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, which has been marked as Ext. D-1 in the present case. The defendant did not deny the execution and consideration of the pronote. He, however, pleaded discharge to the extent of Rs. 2,000-00. The defendant further took a specific stand that the pronote in question has been materially altered by the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that at the time of Navarathri in the year 1961, he paid a sum of Rs. 2,000-00 to the plaintiff and made an endorsement on the back side of the pronote about the payment of the said sum 01 Rs. 2,000-00 to the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that the said endorsement was made in pencil and not in ink as no pen was available at that time. The defendant has further stated that the plaintiff has erased the endorsement made by him and that is the material alteration of the pronote. Relying on the provisions of s. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the defendant contended that the pronote has become void and unenforceable. The plaintiff denied the discharge pleaded by defendant to the extent of Rs. 2,000-00. He further asserted that no endorsement, whatsoever, was made on the back of the pronote by the defendant. He also asserted that no erasure was made, as alleged by the defendant.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff dismissed the plaintiff's suit. He came to the conclusion that the pronote has been materially altered, as contended by the defendant. He appears to have come to the conclusion that the discharge pleaded by the defendant to the extent of Rs. 2,000-00 was established.

( 3 ) THE lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that the pronote has not been materially altered. He held that the discharge pleaded to the extent of Rs. 2,000-00 has not been satisfactorily established.

( 4 ) IT is the legality of the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in appeal that is challenged in this second appeal under S. 100 of the code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) SHRI Swamy, the learned Counel for the appellant, contended that the finding of the learned Civil Judge that the pronote (Ex. D-1) has not been materially altered, is not in accordance with law. In order to satisfy myself, I perused the pronote (Ex. D-1 ). The pronote is on a printed form. The alleged alteration of the pronote is on the back side of the pronote. The back side of the pronote is blank and nothing, whatsoever, is found written there at present. Shri Swamy pointed out that the texture of the paper on the back side somewhere near the middle on the top side indicates that some erasure of some writing has been made. He relied upon the evidence of the handwriting expert to whom the document was sent who has given an opinion that there is some erasure of some writing on the back side of the pronote. In order to prove that an endorsement was made by the defendant on the back side of the pronote which has subsequently been erased by the plaintiff, the defendant has not only examined himself but also examined one Shankarappa, D. W. 2. The learned Civil Judge has assessed the evidence of the defendant and his witness, Shankarappa, D. W. 2. He has observed that Shankarappa, d. W. 2, is a chance witness whose evidence is not worthy of acceptance i do not find any good reasons to disagree with the conclusion of the learned Civil Judge. As the defendant has not established that an endorsement was made on the back side of the pronote in pencil, the question of erasing the alleged endorsement does not arise. Sri Swami c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document