Material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void, and the rights and liabilities of undisclosed principals do not apply in cases of denied promissory notes.

1. The dismissal of three suits jointly tried and disposed of by the Subordinate Judge, Trichur by a common judgment gave rise to these three appeals by the plaintiffs. Plaintiff in O.S.Nos.361 and 362 of 1977 is a partnership firm, "Jawahar Trading Corporation". There are three defendants in O.S. No.361 of 1977 and four in O.S. No.362 of 1977. Defendants 1 to 3 are common. First defendant in these two suits is the sole defendant in O.S.No.165 of 1978 filed by one Krishnakumar, who is the husband of the Managing Partner of the firm, which is the plaintiff in the other two suits. In O.S.No.361 of 1977, the claim is for Rs.49,000/- due under three pronotes, Exts.Al to A3, and in O.S.No. 362 of 1977 Rs.30,500/- due under Ext.A4 pronote is claimed. In O.S.No.165 of 1978, the transaction is oral loan of Rs.29,700/-.

2. The sole defendant in O.S.No.165 of 1978, who is the first defendant in the other two suits, alone contested. He is the Managing Director of "Yadava Steels and Allied Industries, Trichur". His contention, in brief, is this. He wanted agency and dealership for Maruti cars in Kerala and for that purpose, as directed by Maruti Limited, he was working as its canvassing agent to get share holders. Krishnakumar wanted shares and for that purpose, entrusted Rs.1,19,200/- to him by several instalments for being forwarded to Maruti Limited. It was so done. As requested by him, by way of temporary measure till shares are obtained from Maruti Limited, for being shown to the income tax authorities in case of necessity, certain printed forms were filled up, signed and given. Maruti Limited went into liquidation. Therefore, these forms were utilised for manipulating the four pronotes as if they were executed jointly with the other defendants. There was no pronote or loan transaction.

3. Accepting the contention of the first defendant, all the three suits were dismissed without costs. Hence these appeals.

4. The amount claimed in the three suits together comes to Rs.1,09,200/-. Admittedly, there was another suit for Rs. 10,000/-. Thus there is no dispute between the parties that the amount involved in the transaction is Rs.1,19,200/-. The question for consideration is mainly whether these are advances made by Krishnakumar for the purpose mentioned by the first defendant or whether they are repayable amounts advanced by the firm under four pronotes and oral loan by Krishnakumar. On the evidence, the trial court accepted the contentions of the first defendant and also found that Exts. A1 to A4 are materially altered documents and as such void under S.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

5. On the evidence, the trial court found that "Jawahar Trading Corporation" is a business run by Krishnakumar in the name of his wife as Managing Partner and the other defendants in the pronote suits are his friends and associates. Those findings are well supported by the evidence and do not require any interference. In the written statement the first defendant detailed the circumstances under which the four documents were executed and said that they were never intended as pronotes and nobody else joined with him. Just like Krishnakumar, the other defendants in O.S.Nos.361 and 362 of 1977 also advanced amounts to the first defendant for getting shares in Maruti Limited. This is evident from Exts.B2 to B5 letters sent by them almost simultaneously to the first defendant in the same language as if all were drafted by the same person. To all these persons, first defendant sent replies on 15-12-1976 stating that he arranged for allotment of shares in Maruti Limited. There is absolutely nothing to show that the other defendants had any need for any borrowing jointly with first defendant. It is curious to note that all of them remained ex parte.

6. The alleged borrowings were by the end of 1975 and beginning of 1976. Collusion between Krishnakumar and the other defendants is patent. The connection of the transactions with Maruti Limited is not a ne