https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274422 The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit seeking recovery of debt under an on-demand-promissory note due to a material alteration in the instrument, specifically concerning the date of execution. The court found the alteration to be material, rendering the promissory note void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The burden of proof regarding the alteration was not satisfactorily discharged by the plaintiffs, leading the court to conclude that they were likely responsible for the alteration. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the defendants were granted permission to pursue legal action against the plaintiffs for the alleged alteration. en-us Tue, 13 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2018 17:40:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274422 The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit seeking recovery of debt under an on-demand-promissory note due to a material alteration in the instrument, specifically concerning the date of execution. The court found the alteration to be material, rendering the promissory note void under Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The burden of proof regarding the alteration was not satisfactorily discharged by the plaintiffs, leading the court to conclude that they were likely responsible for the alteration. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the defendants were granted permission to pursue legal action against the plaintiffs for the alleged alteration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 13 Mar 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274422