CHELLAMMA Vs. PADMANABHAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, whose suit on the strength of a promissory note having been dismissed by the lower court as a result of a finding that the promissory note was materially altered without the knowledge of the executant respondent, has come up in revision.

(2.) Ext. P1 dated 27 7 1965 is the plaint promissory note executed by the respondent to the revision petitioner for a sum of Rs. 325/-. The respondent admitted the execution of Ext. P1, but he contended that it was not supported by consideration and that it was materially altered by the revision petitioner without his knowledge. The court below found that Ext. P1 was supported by consideration, but on the next question, the finding was that it was materially altered.

(3.) The material alteration is sought to be established on account of the affixture of 2 revenue stamps of 5 Paise denomination each to the promissory note after its execution. Ext. P1 now contained 3 revenue stamps, one of 10 Paise and two of 5 pasie each. 10 pasie stamp is found affixed on the right hand side of Ext P1 and 2 five paise stamps on the left hand side of Ext. P1. The case of the respondent is that the two revenue stamps of 5 paise each affixed on the left hand side of Ext. P1 was a later insertion by the revision petitioner without his knowledge. The respondent was examined as DW 2 and the attestor to Ext. P1 was examined as DW 1. The evidence of both DWs 1 and 2 was that when Ext. P1 was executed, there was no revenue stamp affixed on the left hand side of Ext. P1 and that it was a later insertion. The revision petitioner was examined as PW 1. His evidence was that all the stamps had been affixed at the time of the execution. There are certain striking circumstances to show that the 2 revenue stamps affixed on the left hand side of the promissory note were later insertion. It is true that the respondent in his written statement did not state specifically that any new stamps had been affixed to the promissory note after its execution. But it is alleged that there had been material alteration in the promissory note and on the basis of that promissory note the revision petitioner could not enforce his claim. The 10 paise stamp affixed on the right hand side of Ext. P1 was admittedly cancelled by the respondent with his signature and data. But, the five paise stamps on Ext. P1 were seen cancelled only with date. That cancellation with the date on the 5 paise stamps on Ext. P1 appears to be in a different ink and the colour of the two stamps alleged to have been affixed subsequently is also different from the colour of one 10 paise stamp, which was originally affixed on the Ext. P1. The two stamps affixed later were the old Travancore Stamps with the labels of T. C., printed on it while the original 10 paise stamp is a Kerala Revenue Stamp. On a scrutiny of the impugned stamps, it is clear that they were pasted with a different gum with some stains spread over the stamps. Scrutinising the document, I feel satisfied that these two stamps of 5 paise denomination each were affixed subsequent to the date of the execution of the promissory note. If there is prima facie evidence on a promissory note itself that there was alteration, the onus is on the revision petitioner, who is the plaintiff, to prove that the instrument was altered before it was executed and delivered. The cancellation of the two disputed stamps in a different ink and the difference in the colour of the stamps and other circumstances are sufficient materials to compel me to come to the conclusion that Ext. P1 was altered subsequent to its execution. The observation of the court below is also to the same effect. I find accordingly that Ext. P1 was materially altered after its execution.