Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. A similar question was considered by a learned single Judge of High Court of Madras in Amirtham Pillai v. Nanjah Gouden (AIR 1914 Madras 369). As in this case, promissory note was allegedly executed by two  persons and it was found that only one of them executed the instrument. It was held that a material portion of the promissory note being a forgery, it comes within the principle of the decision which hold that a material alteration invalidate whole note. As signature of one of the executants was forged it was held that the whole instrument is void and a decree cannot be passed against that person who executed it also. In Madam Pillai v. Athinarayana Pillai (AIR 1925 Madras 929) a similar question was considered by a single Judge. In that case also the promissory note was allegedly executed by two persons a father and so. On the evidence it was found that signature of one of the son was forged and the father executed the note. Finding was that after father executed the note, signature of the son was forged would make the whole instrument void only if it is an illegal contract. It was held:-