July 11, 2019:
Madras High Court has held that if amount is filled in different ink, no liability can be assumed as the same would indicate a material alteration rendering the negotiable instruments void.
A bench of Justice Karthikeyan has passed the order in the case titled as Mrs.M.Mallika vs Mr.Kasi Pillai on 21.06.2019.
A suit was filed by the plaintiff Mallika against the defendant Kasi Pillai seeking a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs.60,200/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., on Rs.35,000/- from the date of the suit till date of decree and at the rate of 6% p.a., thereafter till the date of realisation and for costs of the suit. This suit came up for consideration before the District Munsif Court, Sholinghur and by Judgment dated 27.06.2011, the suit was decreed.
Thereafter the defendant Kasi Pillai filed A.S.No. 22 of 2012 before the Sub Court, Ranipet, which was subsequently transferred to Sub Court, Arakkonam and renumbered as A.S.No. 78 of 2014. By Judgment dated 27.08.2014, the Appeal Suit was allowed and suit was dismissed.
The matter reached the High Court where it observed "A perusal of Ex.A-1 promissory note reveals that it was a printed note and the names of the defendant Kasi Pillai, his father's name Padavetta Pillai and his residence Vengupattu Villages and the amount of Rs.5,000 and the rate of interest at Rs.2/- have been written in Green ink. However before the digit 5 in the amount column, there is an addition of the digit 3 in blue ink. This has been construed by the learned First Appellate Court as a material alteration going the root of the case. The other writings, http://www.judis.nic.in namely, the date 22.11.2007 and the names of the witness, P.T.Mani and Paraveendar in Tamil have also been written in blue ink. No explanation had been given in the plaint by the plaintiff as to why the promissory note had been filled up in two separate inks and why particularly the amount, 35,000 had also been filled up in two separate inks with the digit 3 in blue ink and the amount 5000 immediately succeeding the digit 3 in green ink. I concur with the findings of the learned First Appellate Court that this is a material alteration. I hold that this material alteration, renders the instrument void in accordance with Section 87 of the Negotiable Instrument Act".
It also observed "The material alteration is visible to the naked eye and the very fact that the amount which is the basis for the claim had been written in two different inks, raises a strong suspicion regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the promissory note. It also gives rise to a doubt whether the digit 3 had been subsequently appended after the defendant had signed the promissory note. This would render the document void as against the plaintiff/appellant herein. I therefore answer the first substantial question of law that the First Appellate Court had correctly appreciated Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. In view of this categoric finding, the second substantial question of law pails into insignificance".
Read the Order here:
Picture Source :
