https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274420 The court held that the alteration in the date of the promissory note constituted a material alteration, rendering the note unenforceable under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court rejected the petitioner's plea for relief based on the original cause of action. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of an endorsement of payment on the note, leading to the rejection of this contention. The court allowed the revision petition, decreeing in favor of the petitioner for the principal amount with interest and awarded costs against the respondents, except for one respondent who was dismissed from the petition. en-us Fri, 07 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:34:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274420 The court held that the alteration in the date of the promissory note constituted a material alteration, rendering the note unenforceable under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court rejected the petitioner's plea for relief based on the original cause of action. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner failed to prove the authenticity of an endorsement of payment on the note, leading to the rejection of this contention. The court allowed the revision petition, decreeing in favor of the petitioner for the principal amount with interest and awarded costs against the respondents, except for one respondent who was dismissed from the petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Aug 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274420