Chandrasekhara Ayyar, J.

1. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit promissory note, Ex. A, was materially altered after it was executed and that certain words were introduced later. The words appear above the signature of the defendant and below the date and their translation is "the Proprietor of the Karthika Stores." The plaintiff is the assignee from the 2nd defendant who was the original payee.

2. As the alteration is apparent on the face of the document the onus is on the plaintiff to explain it and to show that it is not a material alteration which renders the instrument void and unenforceable. The plaintiff has made no such attempt. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the alteration is material in that the defendant Andi was sought to be converted into "Andi, Proprietor of the Karthika Stores." The answer given by the plaintiff is that it does not amount to anything more than a mere description and that in this case it happens to be a wrong description because Andi was not the Proprietor of the Karthika Stores, either according to the plaintiff or according to himself. Therefore, he contends that it is an immaterial alteration which does not affect the legali