1959 (8) TMI 53

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Boligorla Yerrayya father of Respondents 2 to 4, Madagani Venkatigaou father of respondent No. 5, and Megali Pulligadu, respondent No. 6 executed a promissory note' Ex. A-1 on 6-11-1945 promising to pay Rs. 300/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. On 4-11-1948 they made an endorsement Ex. A1(a) on Ex. A.1 to the effect that a promissory note is executed for the sum of principal and interest for Rs. 410-4-0 due under the promissory note. The renewed promissory note, Ex. A-2 again bore the endorsement, Ex. A.2(a) by the promisors acknowledging the payment of Rs. 4/- on 2-11-1951 under Ex. A.2. 3. The petitioner brought SCS No. 500 of 1954 for recovery of Rs. 444/- towards the principal and interest due under the re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the same could not he said to be enforceable. He also repelled the plea advanced by the petitioner that he was entitled to relief on the original cause of action as evidenced by Ex. A-l, read with Ex. A-l (a) and Ex. A-2 (a) on the ground that the suit is not based on that cause of action and that the fact that there was a part payment on Ex, A-2 did not alter the position. 5. The learned advocate for this petitioner in the first place contended that the alleged material alterations were not fatal since the petitioner had sworn that he was not responsible for it. To fortify himself he referred me to Krushanacharan Padhi v. Gourochandro Dyano Sumanto AIR 1940 Mad 62, and Gourochandro Dyano Sum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....here a bond, while in possession of the plaintiff underwent an alteration with regard to the date thereof. The period of limitation from the original date had not expired and no proof of fraud had been tendered. It was held that the bond was void as such and was not receivable in evidence to prove the debt. In this view of the matter, the first contention advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner fails and that brings me to the consideration of the question whether the petitioner could get any relief on the original debt as evidenced by Ex. A-1 of which Ex. A-2 is admittedly a renewal. To make the matter short on this aspect of the case, I may refer to Rangaswami Reddy v. K. Doraiswami Reddi, (S) AIR1957Mad715 , which has been ....