Skip to content


Sunder Khatik Vs. Mahadeo Pande - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectBanking
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All282a; 87Ind.Cas.796
AppellantSunder Khatik
RespondentMahadeo Pande
Excerpt:
.....by the cantonment board. [deolali cantonment board v usha devidas dongre, 1993 mah.lj 74; 1993 lab ic 1858 overruled]. - this finding is opposed to the negotiable instruments act, section 13 as amended by act viii of 1919. this document is clearly a negotiable instrument within the meaning of explanation i to section 13 as amended by act viii of 1919. reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party on the case of mokhdum baksh v......the knowledge or consent of the defendant. the courts, however, have held that 8. 87 of the negotiable instruments act which renders a negotiable instrument absolutely void where a material alteration has been made in it does not apply, because this particular note is not a negotiable instrument for it makes the payment due to a specified person only. this finding is opposed to the negotiable instruments act, section 13 as amended by act viii of 1919. this document is clearly a negotiable instrument within the meaning of explanation i to section 13 as amended by act viii of 1919. reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the opposite party on the case of mokhdum baksh v. shaukat ali (1915) 13 a.l.j. 683. that was a decision of 1915 before the act was amended. it seems to.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. The plaintiff brought the suit out of which this application arises to recover Rs. 300 principal and Rs. 186 interest due on a promissory note executed by the defendant. It has been founded by both Courts and it is indeed apparent on the face of the document itself that originally there was no agreement to pay interest and that the agreement to pay interest at Rs. 2 per cent, per mensem was interpolated after the note was written. Both Courts have found that this was done without the knowledge or consent of the defendant. The Courts, however, have held that 8. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which renders a negotiable instrument absolutely void where a material alteration has been made in it does not apply, because this particular note is not a negotiable instrument for it makes the payment due to a specified person only. This finding is opposed to the Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 13 as amended by Act VIII of 1919. This document is clearly a negotiable instrument within the meaning of Explanation I to Section 13 as amended by Act VIII of 1919. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the opposite party on the case of Mokhdum Baksh v. Shaukat Ali (1915) 13 A.L.J. 683. That was a decision of 1915 before the Act was amended. It seems to me that as the law now stands the Court had no option but to dismiss the suit on its finding that the promissory note sued upon had been materially altered. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the decrees of the Courts below and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //