A recent judgment of the Madras High Court highlights that the use of different inks to write the amount on a promissory note could constitute material alteration, thereby rendering it void..The case involved a claim that one, Kasi Pillai (defendant), had executed a promissory note in 2007 undertaking to repay Rs 35,000, plus interest, to M Mallika (plaintiff). In 2010, the plaintiff claimed to have issued a notice for repayment..She went on to institute a suit on the strength of the promissory note, which was decreed in her favour. However, on appeal, a sub-court set aside the lower court verdict in Pillai’s favour. This led the plaintiff to file a second appeal before the High Court. Pillai defended by contending that the promissory note was fraudulent..On a perusal of the material before it, the High Court found no reason to disturb the judgment of the first appellate court. Pertinently, Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that the amount of Rs 35,000 was written in two different inks on the promissory note; the “3” in green ink and the “5,000” in blue ink..“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, 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…..… 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.”.Further, the Court highlighted that the plaintiff furnished no explanation for this discrepancy, although the onus was on her to prove her case..“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….…The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff advanced an argument that this aspect had not been stated in the written statement. However, a duty is cast on the plaintiff, to prove her case. She was in possession of the promissory note which was filled up evidently with two separate pens, one having green and the another having blue ink. The plaintiff, in the first instance in the plaint should have disclosed the reason behind this aspect. Suppressing that fact and thereafter, stating that the defendant has to deny the same cannot be accepted by this Court.”.The judge proceeded to concur with the first appellate Court that discrepancy noted amounted to material alteration of the promissory note, thereby rendering it void under Section 87 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972..“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.”.In view of these findings, the High Court confirmed the sub-court verdict and dismissed the appeal..[Read Judgment]
A recent judgment of the Madras High Court highlights that the use of different inks to write the amount on a promissory note could constitute material alteration, thereby rendering it void..The case involved a claim that one, Kasi Pillai (defendant), had executed a promissory note in 2007 undertaking to repay Rs 35,000, plus interest, to M Mallika (plaintiff). In 2010, the plaintiff claimed to have issued a notice for repayment..She went on to institute a suit on the strength of the promissory note, which was decreed in her favour. However, on appeal, a sub-court set aside the lower court verdict in Pillai’s favour. This led the plaintiff to file a second appeal before the High Court. Pillai defended by contending that the promissory note was fraudulent..On a perusal of the material before it, the High Court found no reason to disturb the judgment of the first appellate court. Pertinently, Justice CV Karthikeyan noted that the amount of Rs 35,000 was written in two different inks on the promissory note; the “3” in green ink and the “5,000” in blue ink..“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, 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…..… 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.”.Further, the Court highlighted that the plaintiff furnished no explanation for this discrepancy, although the onus was on her to prove her case..“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….…The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff advanced an argument that this aspect had not been stated in the written statement. However, a duty is cast on the plaintiff, to prove her case. She was in possession of the promissory note which was filled up evidently with two separate pens, one having green and the another having blue ink. The plaintiff, in the first instance in the plaint should have disclosed the reason behind this aspect. Suppressing that fact and thereafter, stating that the defendant has to deny the same cannot be accepted by this Court.”.The judge proceeded to concur with the first appellate Court that discrepancy noted amounted to material alteration of the promissory note, thereby rendering it void under Section 87 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972..“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.”.In view of these findings, the High Court confirmed the sub-court verdict and dismissed the appeal..[Read Judgment]