Overwriting in a promissory note or receipt does not amount to a material alteration under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it does not change the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties.

1. - This is a revision application by the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money on the basis of a promissory note accompanied with a receipt. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit on the ground that the promissory note and the receipt have been materially altered and as such they are void and inadmissible in evidence under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

2. The plaintiff came with the case that the defendant Ratia was the 'Karta' of the Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself and his sons Rama, Chela and Sakia and that the defendant Ratia borrowed a sum of Rs. 501/- from the plaintiff and executed promissory note and receipt on April 23, 1969. It was also alleged by the plaintiff that though in the promissory note as well as in the receipt the names of the sons of Fatia were mentioned but both these documents were executed by the defendant Ratia alone. The defendant Ratia in his statement denied both the execution as well as consideration. He also denied that there was and Joint Hindu Family consisting of himself & his sons at the time when the promissory note is alleged to have been executed by him. According to him his son Rama separated from him long ago and his son Chela expired in Samvat year 2015. He also said that on the date of the promissory note his son Sakia was a minor. The defendant took several other pleas in defence. One of them was that the promote and the receipt were materially altered as there was apparent over writing in. the promissory note and the receipt. It was further pleaded that the ink used in filling up several blank spaces in the printed promissory note and receipt was different. The trial court on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 11 issues. On consideration of the evidence led by the parties the trial court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff except issue No. 7 which runs as under:

7& vk;k izksuksV o jlhn esVksfj;yh vkYVMZ gksus ls ckbfMax o bu ,soksMsal gSA
The burden of this issue was put on the defendant. It appears that no evidence was led by the defendant in respect of issue No. 7. it was however, argued before the trial by the learned Counsel for the defendant that material alterations in the promissory note and the receipt were apparent on bare perusal of the said documents and as such in view of Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence. The learned Counsel of the plaintiff in reply so this argument referred to the statement of the plaintiff Bhika Lal. The relevant portion of his statement runs as under:

bZ0 ,Dl 1 o bZ0 ,Dl 2 dh fy[kkih ,oa :Ik;s 501@& dh vnk;xh xkWo Nkxok es dh FkhA bZ0 ,Dl 1 es b0 ls ,Q o bZ0 ,Dl 2 es bZ ls ,Q v{kjks ij xqVkbZ Nhd gks tkus dks otg ls nqckjk dhA Nhd dk vi lqxu gks tkus ls nqckjk xqVkbZ dhA Nhd nks ckj gqbZA dzkl bXtkfeus'ku xxx eq>s Nhads xqVkbZ fd;s x;s v{kj fy[k jgk FkkA rc gqbZ igyh Nhd bZ0 ,Dl0 2 fy[krs le; gqbZA igyh Nhd Loa; dks gqbZ FkhA nwljh Nhd Hkh eq>s gh gqbZ FkhA igys eS bZ0 ,Dl0 2 jlhn fy[kk o fQj izksuksV fy[kkA bZ0 ,Dl 2 ls ,Q ^;k* rd fy[kus ds ckn eq>s igyh Nhd gqbZ bZ0 ,Dl0 1 es ,Q es ^;k* rd fy[kus ds ckn Nhd vk;h FkhA nwljh Nhd vkus ds 15&20 feuV ckn es bZ0 ,Dl 2 , ls ch bckjr fy[kh es , ls ch bckjr fy[khA dksbZ dke djrs gh Nhd gks tk;s rks mls vi lqxu ekurs gSA
The explanation for overwriting furnished by the plaintiff was disbelieved by the trial court and it was held that tie overwriting appearing between E to F in the promissory note as well as in the receipt amounted to material alteration and as such the promissory note was inadmissible in evidence. The portion between E to F on which overwriting appears on the promissory note as well as on the receipt runs as under:

Hkkach] jRrks] jkfe;ks] psfy;ks] csVk iksrjk eksrhth jk tkrs ckslh;kA
Since the trial court held that overwriting on the aforesaid words appearing in the promissory note and receipt amounted to material alteration, it dismissed the suit.

3. The plainti