1. In this case the plaint-tiff sued on a bond to recover a sum of Rs. 10 borrowed in 1922 with interest. The defendant contended that the bond was only for Rs. 5 and that it had been paid off. The learned Small Cause Court Judge found that the consideration was only Rs. 5 and the bond had been tampered with. But he found that the plea of payment of the defendant was not true. He dismissed the suit on the ground that it was based on a false document. Against this order a Rule has been obtained. I have been referred to the case of Parbati Charan Mukherjee v. Amarendra Nath Bhattacharjee 96 Ind. Cas. 97 : 53 C. 418 : A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 831 for the proposition that although the bond had been tampered with it was admissible to prove the existence of the debt of Rs. 5. On the other hand I have been referred to the English case of Suffel v. Bank of England (1882) 9 Q.B.D. 555 : 51 L.J.Q.B. 401 : 47 L.T. 346 : 30 W.R. 932 : 46 J.P. 500, and the old cases therein cited against such proposition. It appears to me to be an established principle of law that when a deed is altered on a material point by the plaintiff himself, thereby it becomes void. Now, in this case it cannot be said that the plaintiff has really produced any evidence at all apart from the tampered deed to prove the debt. The mere fact that the defendant said in the written statement that the original deed was for Rs. 5 should, not in my opinion, be used for the benefit of the plaintiff who tampered with the deed and, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Judge has rightly dismissed the suit.
2. The Rule is, therefore, discharged with costs, hearing-fee, one gold mohur.