Rajamannar, C.J.-This appeal originally came up before Krishnaswami Nayudu, J., who referred it to a Division Bench by the following order:

"I should consider that this second appeal may be heard by a Bench in view of the point raised by Mr. N. Appu Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant, that in the case of a promissory note which becomes void by reason of a material alteration under section 87 the principle embodied in section 65 of the Indian Contract Act could be applied, and the person who has received a benefit under the negotiable instrument, treating it as a contract, cannot retain the benefit. In support, of it, he relied on the observation of Abdur Rahman, J., in the decision in Krushnacharana Padhi v. Gourochandro Dyano Sumanto1, which runs thus:

'The promissory note having become void, the defendant who had received an advantage under the instrument is bound to restore it or to make compensation for it. There seems to be no reason why the Court should not act in such a case on the principle embodied in section 65 of the Indian Contract Act.'

The question, however, is whether section 87 is self-contained and the provisions of the Contract Act would not be applicable to the matter as is ground by Mr. K.G. Srinivasa Iyer, learned counsel for the respondent. In view of the importance of the question, the papers may be placed before My Lord the Chief Justice for orders as to the posting of this second appeal before a Bench."

The suit from which this second appeal arises was brought in the Court of the District Munsif of Salem to recover a sum of Rs. 1,331 being the amount alleged to be due as principal and interest under a promissory note dated 20th December 1947. The plaint contained the following material allegations. On 15th December, 1947, the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend him Rs. 1,500 and received a sum of Rs. 1,100 on that date. The plaintiff promised to ‘lend the balance within a week, but was unable to do so. On 20th December, 1047 the defendant therefore executed a promissory note for Rs. 1,100 in acknowledgment of the amount borrowed on 15th December, 1947. After the execution of the promissory note, at the defendant’s request, the plaintiff paid to the defendant a further sum of Rs 100 and the defendant altered in his own hand the figure of Rs. 1,100, into Rs. 1,200, in the said promissory note. On 30th December, 1948, the defendant made an endorsement in his own handwriting on the promissory note of a payment of Rs. 68-12-0. On nth March, 1950, he acknowledged the debt due to the plaintiff in a mortgage executed by him. Hence the suit is not barred by limitation. (The suit was brought in 1951). The cause of action arose on 15th December, 1947, when the hand loan of Rs. 1,100, was given and on 20th December, 1947, when a further loan of Rs. 100, was given and acknowledged in the promissory note and on 30th December, 1948, when the defendant made the endorsement of payment of Rs. 68-12-0 and on 11th March 1950 when the defendant acknowledged the debt.

The defendant stated that he neither received Rs. 1,100 nor any sum from the plaintiff on 15th December, 1947. Only a sum of Rs. 1,000 was received by him on 20th December, 1947. But the promissory note was executed for Rs. 1,100 in view of the provisions of Madras Act IV of 1938. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff with ulterior motives had materially altered the suit promissory note by changing the figure of Rs. 1,100 to Rs. 1,200 and the said alteration was material and therefore the suit promissory note was not enforceable. He further pleaded that there was no original cause of action independent of the promissory note, and when the promissory note itself was not enforceable, the plaintiff cannot rely on any such original cause of action. He also stated that there was a material alteration in the endorsement of payment from 20th December, 1948 to 30th December, 1948. In addition to the above pleas, the defendant also raised a plea of dischar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document