https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297087 Material alteration of a promissory note requires proof that the instrument no longer reflects the contract intended by the parties; unsubstantiated allegations based on handwriting differences or alleged blanks do not invalidate it. Promissory notes dated 13 August 1966 and 16 August 1966 were treated as validly executed for consideration, with no proven alteration or post-execution filling of blanks. A continuing guarantee remained binding because revocation required notice to the creditor under the prescribed contractual method and under the Indian Contract Act; family partition, oral revocation, or implied revocation was insufficient. The instalment payment arrangement was set aside after non-payment of instalments. en-us Tue, 16 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Aug 2021 11:44:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297087 Material alteration of a promissory note requires proof that the instrument no longer reflects the contract intended by the parties; unsubstantiated allegations based on handwriting differences or alleged blanks do not invalidate it. Promissory notes dated 13 August 1966 and 16 August 1966 were treated as validly executed for consideration, with no proven alteration or post-execution filling of blanks. A continuing guarantee remained binding because revocation required notice to the creditor under the prescribed contractual method and under the Indian Contract Act; family partition, oral revocation, or implied revocation was insufficient. The instalment payment arrangement was set aside after non-payment of instalments. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Mar 1976 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297087