AIR 1986 ANDHRA PRADESH 120 ::(1985) 21 LS 35

Andhra Pradesh High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): A. Seetharam Reddi , J

(A) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.87— Material alteration - Date inserted later in instrument - It amounts to material alteration. Where a look at the pro-note itself made it apparent that the date which was in a different ink, that is other than the ink that had been used for body of instrument, was a subsequent introduction into the document, the subsequent insertion would amount to "material alteration".(Para 6) "Material alteration", takes in not only a case where certain thing which is already written has been altered or erased but also a new insertion. (B) Negotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.87— Material alteration -Burden of proof - Custodian of instrument has to prove that there is no alteration. Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.101, S.102, S.103, S.104— It is well settled that the person who is in custody of document subsequent to its execution, should there be any alteration has to discharge the burden of establishing that it is not altered. (C) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.100— Scope - Concurrent finding of fact as to passing of consideration under pro-note - It cannot be interfered with in second appeal. ....