The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of material alteration in pronotes under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to demonstrate the absence of alteration after execution.

1. The defendant is the appellant. The suit was on the basis of a pronote Ext. A executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 16101950. The main contentions raised by the defendant were that the note was not supported by consideration, that the note was executed under coercion and intimidation by the defendant and that subsequent to the execution of the note, it was materially altered by the plaintiff by affixing three one Anna Stamps so as to make that instrument a valid one.

2. The lower court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the note was supported by consideration, that there was no evidence to show that the note was executed under a coercion or intimidation, or to show that there was material alteration of the note, and decreed the suit.

3. In this appeal counsel for the appellant challenges the correctness of the findings of the lower court. He contended that the note was not supported by consideration because there was no ready cash payment as stated in the pronote. He submitted that the note was executed under the following circumstances: The defendant was a salesman of the Planters Company Limited Coonoor. One firm called Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons who were tea merchants in Trivandrum used to purchase tea from the Planters Company Ltd. Certain consignments of tea to Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons got damaged during the transit by rail and they were claiming damages on that account from Planters Company Ltd. The Company sent its chief representative to Trivandrum on 27 71950. That gentleman was satisfied that the tea had become damaged and he therefore advised the sale of it at a reduced price and promised that he would recommend to Planters Company Ltd., to compensate Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons for their loss. In pursuance of that the tea was as a matter of fact, sold and an amount of Rs. 4000/- odd was realised. There still remained a balance and Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons claimed that amount from Planters Company Ltd. But there was no response from it. The defendant being the sale agent was persuaded to execute a note to the plaintiff in consideration of the loss which Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons sustained on account of the damage caused to the goods.

4. This case, that the note was executed to compensate the loss incurred by Abdulla Abubaker Settu & Sons on account of the transaction in tea was attempted to be proved by a number of letters. I do not think that I need go into this point as my finding on the question of the material alteration of the note is sufficient to dispose of this appeal.

5. The main point argued before me by the appellant was that the note was materially altered. That case was pleaded by him in the written statement. According to the defendant, originally there was only one 1 Anna Stamp and that alone was cancelled. Subsequently without his consent three 1 Anna Stamps were affixed below the 1 Anna Stamp and the same were cancelled. The cancellation appears to be in a different ink and the colour of the three stamps alleged to have been affixed subsequently is also different from the colour of the one Anna Stamp which was affixed originally. Scrutinising the document, I feel satisfied that the three one Anna Stamps were affixed subsequent to the date of the execution of the note. If there is prima facie evidence on note itself that there was alteration it is for the plaintiff to prove that the instrument was altered before it was executed and delivered. The cancellation of the three stamps in a different ink, and the difference in the colour of the three one Anna Stamps are vita] circumstances which compel me to come to the conclusion that the note has been altered. The observation of the lower court is also to the effect that a different ink was used for cancelling the 3 one Anna stamps from the ink used for cancelling the one Anna Stamp. The manner in which three one Anna stamps were affixed to the note also appeared suspicious to tha