Affixing of stamps subsequently to a promissory note without the knowledge of the promisor is a material alteration, rendering the instrument invalid against the person altering the same.

T.S. Krishnamoorthy Iyer, J.

1. Defendant is the appellant. The suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1160/- due under Ext. P-1 promissory note dated 15 8 1952 alleged to have been executed by the defendant, though dismissed by the Trial Court, was decreed by the lower appellate court.

2. Though the Trial Court found that the defendant received the sum of Rs. 1160/- as alleged by the plaintiff, it was of the view that Ext. P-1 was materially altered and dismissed the suit. The learned Judge also was of the view, that the defendant received the sum of Rs. 1160/- but he differed from the learned Munsiff and held that there were no alterations in Ext. P1 after its execution and even if there are any alterations they are not material alterations but were made only to carry out the common intention of the parties to the instrument.

3. Though the learned advocate for the appellant questioned the findings of the courts below regarding the payment of Rs. 1160/- by the plaintiff to the defendant, we do not think that there is any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. These findings are based on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case. It cannot be said that there is no evidence at all to support the concurrent findings of fact. We therefore confirm the concurrent findings of the courts below and hold that the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs. 1160/-to the defendant on 15-8-1952.

4. But we do not agree with the learned Judge that there are no material alterations in Ext. P1. Ext. P-1 consists of two parts. The defendant admitted one part of Ext. P1 containing his signature but denied the second portion of the same. The admitted portion of Ext. P-1 is in these terms :

xxxxxxxx

Below the admitted signature is the following portion which according to the plaintiff was signed by the defendant.

xxxxxxxx

The defendant denied having executed the above portion and his signature to the same. The defendants also denied having stamped Ext. P1 at the time he affixed his signature to the admitted portion in Ext. P1. According to the defendant, the stamps were affixed to Ext. P-1 by the plaintiff without the knowledge and consent of the defendant to make it admissible in evidence in the suit to be filed.

5. Affixing of stamps to a promissory note after its execution without any stamp in order to make it a valid instrument for being sued upon is a material alteration within the meaning of S.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Sir Charles Arnold White observed in Lakshmammal v. Narasimharaghava Aiyangar 1915 ILR 38 Madras 746 at 749:

"Mr. Justice Wallis held that the alterations were made with the obvious purpose of enabling these documents, which could not be sued upon, to be sued upon where it was expected that they would have to be sued upon, namely in Mysore.There was some discussion as to whether the documents in their original form were bonds or promissory notes. In the plaint they are described as bonds; but in the documents themselves they are described as promissory notes. As promissory notes they are insufficiently stamped; and whether or not in this state of things they could be sued on in their original form in Madras, it seems clear that the insufficiency of stamp would have been a fatal obstacle to their being sued on in Mysore.

"I should be prepared to take the same view as the learned Judge and to hold that the alterations were made in order that these documents could be sued upon in Mysore. If this is so, it seems to me to be absolutely clear that the alterations were material alterations since they were made for the purpose of enabling the plaintiff to sue in a court in which if the alterations had not been made, she would not have been able to sue."

In Srinivasan Pillai v. Kanniappa Pillai (71 Law Weekly 398) Ramaswamy, J. took the view that a subsequent affixture of a revenue stamp to a promissory note to make legally enforceable is a material alteration which