Skip to content


Mahomed Vajzeerally Khan Mokhasadar Vs. Sree Rajah Veerawara Thodadenel Suryanarayana Dhatraju Bahadur Garu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ403
AppellantMahomed Vajzeerally Khan Mokhasadar
RespondentSree Rajah Veerawara Thodadenel Suryanarayana Dhatraju Bahadur Garu and anr.
Cases ReferredSuffell v. Bank of England
Excerpt:
- - 555 that 'it must be a material alteration so that the party defending himself may be able to say that it is not the same instrument as that which he executed or to which he put his hand 'as well as......in this case that the addition of an attesting witness, even if it were subsequent to the delivery of the document, is a material altera tion which invalidates the document. in this respect we agree with the judgment in mohesh chunder chatterji v. kamini kumari debia i.l.r. (1885) c. 313 and we adopt the words there quoted from the judgment of lord justice, cotton in the case reported in suffell v. bank of england (1882) l.r. 9 q.b.d. 555 that 'it must be a material alteration so that the party defending himself may be able to say that it is not the same instrument as that which he executed or to which he put his hand 'as well as. the words of the calcutta judgment following the quotation viz., .' that seems a very different thing from an alteration which enables the defendant to say.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. Whether the document A be treated as a pronote or a bond we are of opinion that the Judge was wrong in holding [390] in this case that the addition of an attesting witness, even if it were subsequent to the delivery of the document, is a material altera tion which invalidates the document. In this respect we agree with the judgment in Mohesh Chunder Chatterji v. Kamini Kumari Debia I.L.R. (1885) C. 313 and we adopt the words there quoted from the judgment of Lord Justice, Cotton in the case reported in Suffell v. Bank of England (1882) L.R. 9 Q.B.D. 555 that 'it must be a material alteration so that the party defending himself may be able to say that it is not the same instrument as that which he executed or to which he put his hand 'as well as. the words of the Calcutta judgment following the quotation viz., .' That seems a very different thing from an alteration which enables the defendant to say only, ' this is in every particular the instrument to which I put my hand ; but I did not do so in the presence of the persons who are now represented, as saying that they saw me do so.

2. The Court then called for a finding on some of the other issues in the case, before passing final judgment.


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