The defendant, who succeeded in the Trial Court, namely, District Munsif, Devakottai, in O.S.No.121 of 2005, and who lost in the 1st Appellate Court, namely, Sub Court, Devakottai, in A.S.No.4 of 2009 is before us.

2. The respondent/plaintiff claimed Rs.71,775/-towards principal and interest based on Ex.A1, promissory note, dated 13.04.2003. Inspite of receipt of suit notice, dated 25.08.2005, since no amount was paid, the suit has been instituted by the appellant/defendant.

3. The suit has been resisted by the appellant/defendant contending that he has been employed in the respondent's finance firm, since no salary was paid, when he demanded, he was paid Rs.10,000/- as against a blank promissory note during 2000, subsequently, he repaid Rs.5,000/-to Mr. Srinivasan, partner of the said finance firm, under a receipt and subsequently he had paid the remaining Rs.5,000/- and discharged. However, the respondent filled up the blank promissory note and made it suit promissory note, thus, he is not liable to pay any amount to him.

4. The Trial Court framed necessary issues and tried the suit. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and the scribe as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendant examined himself as P.W.1 and did not let in any documentary evidence.

5. In the Trial Court, a new turn has taken place. Defendant noticing alteration, overwriting the number 3' in the year namely 2003 in Ex.A1, contended that it is material alteration and Ex.A1 is a void instrument and it cannot be enforced in a Court.

6. The Trial Court examined the said contention in the light of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and concluded that it is a material alteration and held that Ex.A1 is a void document, it cannot be enforced in a court of law and thus dismissed the suit.

7. In the circumstances, the plaintiff appealed to the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, in A.S.No.4 of 2009.

8. The First Appellate Court of the view that it is a correction of a mistake occurred in Ex.A1 and it also noticed that there was no plea in the written statement with regard to material alteration, thus it had vacated the Decree and Judgment of the Trial Court and decreed the suit.

9. In the circumstances, defendant preferred this Second Appeal.

10. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the then learned Brother framed the following substantial question of law:

Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in decreeing the suit when they are material alteration regarding the year of the pronote and in Ex.A4 it has been stated that the defendant agreed to pay the amount in January, 2003, while the pronote was dated April, 2003?

11. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that Ex.A1 has been exhibited during trial and the defendant had the opportunity to discover the material alteration in Ex.A1 only then, the cat came out of the bag. Further, in his cross-examination P.W.1 candidly admitted the alteration in respect of the year namely 2003 in Ex.A1. Under these circumstances, applying Section 87 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the Trial Court had rightly termed Ex.A1 a void instrument and thus dismissed the suit. However, it's decision has been simply upset by the Appellate Court without any valid and convincing reason.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the law relating to material alteration has been dealt with in Section 87 of Negotiable Instruments Act. He would submit that alteration as to the date in an instrument, such as promissory note, which is in the nature of extending the time, is a material alteration and that will destroy the legal character of the promissory note.

13. In support of his contention, the learned counsel cited the following rulings:

i. Allampatti Subba Reddy v. Neelapareddi (AIR 1966 A.P. 267);

ii. Jayantilal Goel v. Tmt.Zubeda Khanum, (AIR 1986 A.P. 120);

iii. This Court's decision in S.A.No.824 of 1999, dated 12.01.2012, (Periyasamy vs. Jayaraman).

14. On the other hand, the