Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Defendants 1 and 2, who are father and son respectively, resisted the suit by filing separate written statements. The 1st defendant contended inter alia as follows:-

The 1st defendant has not signed the suit promissory note, nor has he received any consideration thereunder. The purported signature of this defendant in the promissory note is a forgery. Even if the 2nd defendant has executed a promissory note, it has been rendered invalid by reason of material alteration and the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. The statement in the promissory note that the money was borrowed for the purpose of trade of the defendants is incorrect since this defendant has never conducted any trade. This defendant has not received any lawyer notice from the plaintiff. The alleged return of the notice might have been stagemanaged by the plaintiff so as to avoid a denial of the same by this defendant. This defendant is not liable to pay the suit amount and there has been no financial transactions or dealings between this defendant and the plaintiff.

8. Adv. Sri V.V.Asokan made the following submissions before me in support of the appeal:-

This is a case in which Ext.A1 promissory note is admittedly in the handwriting of the 2nd defendant who has also confessed that he has affixed his signature thereto. Even though both the defendants have contended that Ext.A1 promissory note is invalid due to material alteration for the reason that the signature of the 1st defendant appearing in Ext.A1 promissory note is a forgery, the finding of the court below is that the forgery of the 1st defendant's signature might have been committed by the 2nd defendant. Since the 2nd defendant is a party to the document, he cannot take advantage of his own wrong to set up the plea that Ext.A1 is bad due to material alteration within the meaning of sec.87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (vide Madam Pillai@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA v. Adhinarayana Pillai - AIR 1925 Madras 929). The@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA defendants initially filed a joint vakalath. Thereafter they engaged two separate lawyers to develop their defence. Even if this court upholds the finding of the lower court regarding material alteration, the forgery having been committed by the 2nd defendant, a decree should have been given atlest against the 2nd defendant, who admittedly executed the promissory note which was also admittedly prepared in his handwriting.

11. The signature of the 1st defendant over the revenue stamp affixed in Ext.A1 materially differs from his admitted signature found in Ext.X1 thump impression register summoned from the office of the Sub Registrar. In fact, there is no serious challenge against the finding that the signature of the 1st defendant appearing in Ext.A1 promissory note is a forgery. If P.W.1 is to be believed, both the 2nd defendant as well as the 1st defendant signed in his presence at the time of preparing the document itself. This cannot evidently be true since the signature of the 1st defendant is a forgery. It is not known as to how the trial court came to the conclusion that the signature of the 1st defendant in Ext.A1 might have been forged by the 2nd defendant. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 have no case that after the 2nd defendant put the signature in Ext.A1, the document was handed over to the 2nd defendant for getting the signature of the 1st defendant. On the contrary, the definite case pleaded by both the 1st and the 2nd defendants is that it was the plaintiff who forged the signature of the 1st defendant. If so, the plaintiff cannot take advantage of the observation by the trial court to contend for the position that in a case where the material alteration is not committed by the plaintiff, but by the 2nd defendant, the defence of material alteration should not be permitted to be raised by the defendants. Similarly, the plaintiff cannot claim a decree against the 2nd defendant alone on the basis of the admission by the 2nd defendant of his signature in Ext.A1 promissory note which is a joint one imposing a joint liability and which contains the forged signature of the 1st defendant. The decision reported in AIR 1925 Madras 929 (supra) was refused to be@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA followed in Santhu Mohideen Pillai v. Jamaludin Labbai@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AIR 1928 Madras 1092 which was, in turn, approved in@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Kumaraswami Desikar v. Dhiraviam Pillai - AIR 1935@@ AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Madras 40 wherein it is held as follows:-@@ AAAAAAAAA "The suit was laid on a promissory note said to@@ i have been executed by the two defendants. Defendant 1 admitted execution but pleaded that he was not liable on the note. Defendant 2 denied execution and the lower Court found that his signature was forged. A decree has been granted against defendant 1 and the present revision petition is filed against that decree. The general trend of decisions in this Court is that a decree cannot be given on a document which is found to be a forgery. The earliest case here is is an unreported ruling of Miller, J., in C.R.P.No.601 of 1912, where he followed 33 Cal