JUDGMENT :- This second appeal, by a defendant, arises out of a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,941 on the basis of a pronote dated 23-11-1949. The trial Court (Senior Subordinate Judge, Mahasu) dismissed the suit, holding that the pronote was void under S. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act., i.e., because it had been altered, otherwise than in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.

On an appeal being taken by the plaintiff, the learned District Judge of Mahasu, differing from the view of the trial Court, came to the conclusion that the alteration in the pronote had been made by the defendant himself. He further expressed his view that, in any case, it was open to the plaintiff to fall back upon the original consideration and a decree could be passed in favour of the plaintiff, without an amendment of the plaint.

As regards the amount to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court was of the opinion that the plaintiff could be awarded a decree for only Rs. 1,000 plus interest thereupon at 12 per cent. per annum. As regards the balance of Rs. 471, the plaintiff had offered to be bound by the statement of the defendant on specia

Click Here to Read the rest of this document