Seth Loonkaran Sethiya And Ors. vs Mr. Ivan E. John And Ors. on 20 October, 1976
P1 cheque so far as the year noted therein is concerned i.e. '96' has been subjected to very manifest material alteration. There is overwriting and the same is done in a crude manner. This Court as well as the top court of land has held in unequivocal terms that if an alteration by erasure, interlineations or otherwise, is made in a material part of a deed, after its execution, by or with the consent of any party to or person entitled under it, but without the consent of the party or parties liable under it, the deed is rendered void from the time of the alteration so as to prevent the person who has made or authorised the alteration and those claiming under him, from putting the deed in suit to enforce against any party bound by it who did not consent to the alteration, any obligation, convenant or promise thereby undertaken or made. Loonkaran Setha v. Ivan E. John ; Jawahar Trading Corporation v. Ramadas 1989 (2) KLT 932; Ramachandran v. Dinesan . Evidently, the accused has not consented to the material alteration effected to the instrument. Hence, I find that the finding of the court below that Ext. P1 cheque has been subjected to material alteration is upheld. The appeal is dismissed.