SOKALINGAM CHETTY v. DE HOEDT.

SOKALINGAM CHETTY v. DE HOEDT.

C. R., Colombo, 19,153.

Promissory note-Material alteration-Unauthorized insertion of rate of interest-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, ss. 20 and 62-Rights of holder in due course.

In an action brought by the endorsee of a promissory note against the maker for the principal and interest alleged to be due thereon, the defendant pleaded that he did not stipulate for interest, and that the figures appearing on the face of the promissory note as regards interest were inserted without his authority.

Held that, though the unauthorized insertion of the rate of interest was a material alteration of the note,, yet, as such alteration was not apparent to the holder in due course, he had the right, in terms of section 64 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, to enforce payment of the principal only, according to the original tenor of the note.

THE plaintiff in this action sought to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 120, being principal, and Rs. 120 interest, alleged to be due to him upon a promissory note made by the defendant in favour of one Susey Victoria, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendant d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document