THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1102 of 2010 July 08, 2011 Between: Grandhi Subrahmanyeswara Rao, S/o.Veerraju And another ... Appellants And Grandhi Ramakrishna, S/o.Veerraju ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1102 of 2010 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed the suit being O.S.No.291 of 1997 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,78,130/- with subsequent interest. The suit was based on a promissory note dated 11.9.1996 for an amount of Rs.1,41,000/-. The trial Court decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.41,000/-, which was allegedly admitted by the defendant. The first appellate Court, however, reversed the decree and also dismissed the cross-objections of the plaintiff. The second appeal is against the judgment of the learned Principal District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry dated 27.6.2007 in A.S.No.143 of 2004. The parties are referred by their status in the suit. The plaintiffs’ case is that the defendant borrowed Rs.1,41,000/- from the first plaintiff on 11.9.2006 for purchase of land and also for business improvement, and executed the promissory note agreeing to repay the same with interest at 24% per annum. In spite of notice by the plaintiff, the amount was not repaid. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her son was added as second plaintiff. The defendant, who is none other than another son of the deceased first plaintiff, opposed the suit. He pleaded that the first plaintiff executed nominal sale deed dated 10.5.1998 in favour of one Attada Murali Krishna, to avoid land acquisition proceedings in respect of an extent of Acs.1.50 in R.S.No.283 of Srikrishnapatnam village, that Murali Krishna executed power of attorney dated 27.7.1989 in favour of defendant’s elder brother, namely, Subrahmanyeswara Rao for the same land, that out of the said land, an extent of Acs.0.75 was conveyed to the plaintiff by the defendant and one Narasimha Murthy, that the defendant agreed to purchase the remaining extent of land for Rs.37,500/-, that the defendant requested some time for payment of sale consideration and in that connection he executed blank promissory note for Rs.41,000/- on 11.9.1996. He further alleged that the suit promissory note was material altered by misusing the blank promissory note. The trial Court framed appropriate issues. One of the issues framed was whether the figure in the pronote Rs.41,000/- is materially altered to Rs.1,41,000/- as pleaded by the defendant. On this issue, on considering the oral evidence, the trial Court recorded a finding that the suit promissory note is true and valid to the extent of Rs.41,000/- and that by putting ‘1’ before the figure ‘41,000/-’, the promissory note was altered. For this reason, the suit was decreed for Rs.41,000/-. The appellate Court examined Ex.A1 promissory note, and applying the rule that a materially altered negotiable instrument cannot be enforced, reversed the decree of the trial Court. In this second appeal, it is urged that the finding of the Courts below that the suit promissory note was materially altered is arrived at by the Court examination without assistance of an expert and, therefore, it is a perverse finding. It is further urged that in view of the admission of the defendant that he executed blank promissory note for Rs.41,000/-, the decree of the appellate Court has to be sustained. The only question that is relevant at the admission stage of the second appeal is whether a materially altered negotiable instrument like promissory note can be enforced. Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 renders a negotiable instrument void, if it is materially altered. The second appeal is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) July 08, 2011 YS