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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document