SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1940 Supreme(Mad) 445

LEACH
Gourochandro Dyano Sumanto – Appellant
Versus
Krushnacharana Padhi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Leach, C.J.

1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the holder of a promissory note is affected by a material alteration in the instrument when the alteration has been made by a stranger and there has been no fraud or laches on the part of the holder. On 15th October 1928, the appellant executed a promissory note in favour of the adoptive father of the respondent who is a minor. The father died in 1929, being survived by his wife in addition to the respondent, who continued to live with his adoptive mother who is his legal guardian. On 12th October 1931 the appellant paid Rs. 10 on account of the debt due on the instrument and the fact of payment was endorsed on the instrument. On 22nd October 1934 the respondent, through his mother, filed a suit to enforce payment of the amount then due. It was pleaded by the appellant that there were two material alterations in the note and it is now accepted by the respondent that the plea was justified. The alterations consisted in the changing of the date of the promissory note from 15th October 1928 to 25th October 1928; and the date of the endorsement from 12th October 1931 to 22nd October 1931. The appellants case was that t






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top