Material alteration of the negotiable instrument would render it void.

M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.

The first and second defendants are the appellants herein.

2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore granting a decree in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff.

3. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:

The first defendant is a partnership firm and the defendants 2 and 3 are the partners of the first defendant firm. On 5.7.1979 a crossed demand draft for a sum of Rs.65,063/- in favour of the first defendant firm was received by the plaintiff for clearance through Canara Bank, Headquarters Road Branch, Coimbatore. The Canara Bank received the payment and endorsed the same by affixing its rubber stamp. The first defendant has withdrawn the amount from Canara Bank. On 22.8.1979, the first defendant attempted to encash another Demand Draft, and it was found that the demand draft was a forged one and had been tampered with. Canara Bank Branch Manager of Head Quarters Road branch telephoned the plaintiff's branch Manager about this incident and asked the plaintiff's Branch Manager to scrutinise the suit demand draft cleared by the plaintiff. On careful scrutiny, the plaintiff's Branch Manager suspected material alteration of the instrument. It was clear that the date, the name of the payee, the amount of the draft, the names of the drawer and drawee had all been tampered with and materially altered by some chemical process in an ingenious manner. A complaint has been lodged with the police on 25.8.1979. After investigation, the second defendant was arrested and the police recovered Rs.31,000/-. The said amount has been paid to the plaintiff. The police were in search of others. The first defendant had no title to the instrument. The first defendant who had drawn the amount from the Canara Bank is liable to pay back the amount, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the first defendant. Out of Rs.65,063/-, the plaintiff has received through police Rs.31,000/-. The suit is filed to recover a sum of Rs.39001.18 with interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till realisation.

4. The suit was resisted by the the first and second defendants by filing a written statement with the following averments:

The first defendant company is not a partnership company. The third defendant is not a partner of the first defendant firm. It is admitted by the second defendant that he received a Demand Draft in the name of the first defendant company for Rs.65,063/-. The said demand draft was also encashed by the Canara Bank from the plaintiff Bank and was given credit to in the account of the first defendant Company. The defendants 1 and 2 never had a hand in any manner at any time in the alleged forgery of the said demand draft. The said demand draft is not a forged one. The plaintiff is bound to prove that it did not receive the advice slip from the drawer bank at least till 25.8.1979. During May, 1979, one Krishnakumar along with broker Sami approached the first defendant and he was introduced to the second defendant. The second defendant gave him the proforma invoice and informed that without receiving the amount, he cannot supply the materials. Hence, the said Krishnakumar issued a demand draft for Rs.65,063/- and it was sent for collection. Later, the said Krishnakumar placed with the second defendant a second order for the supply of electrical motors and pump sets for the amount of Rs.65000/- and sent a demand draft. This demand draft was found to be a forged one and a police complaint was given. The police examined the second defendant and Krishnamoorthy Mudaliar and they informed the police of the first demand draft that was encashed. Only on the information given by the second defendant, the plaintiff probed into the matter and found that the first demand draft was also materially altered. The second defendant was not arrested by the police. Only Sasi was arrested and remanded by the police. The defendants 1