https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274421 The revision petition was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to provide a valid explanation for the material alteration in the promissory note, resulting in its voidance under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment emphasized the burden of proof on parties seeking to enforce altered instruments and highlighted the necessity of explaining alterations satisfactorily to avoid suspicions. Failure to offer a credible explanation leads to the presumption of post-execution alterations, rendering the promissory note void. The court underscored the importance of addressing alterations in negotiable instruments to maintain their validity. en-us Tue, 28 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274421 The revision petition was dismissed as the plaintiff failed to provide a valid explanation for the material alteration in the promissory note, resulting in its voidance under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment emphasized the burden of proof on parties seeking to enforce altered instruments and highlighted the necessity of explaining alterations satisfactorily to avoid suspicions. Failure to offer a credible explanation leads to the presumption of post-execution alterations, rendering the promissory note void. The court underscored the importance of addressing alterations in negotiable instruments to maintain their validity. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Sep 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274421