Honble JAIN, J. – The plaintiff-appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8th September, 1975 passed by learned District Judge, Udaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 42/1974. (2). Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that - the defendant took a loan of Rs. 10500 /- from the plaintiff on 10.8.1973 and executed a pronote and a receipt thereof in favour of the latter. The loan was required by the defendant in order to make payment to labours who were engaged for execution of the work of M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation, who had taken a contract for erecting electricity towers on the Debari-Sirohi road. At the relevant time, the defendant was a Field Engineer and was supervising the aforesaid work. A third document Ex.3 was also alleged to have been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the back of Ex.1. By way of Ex.3, the defendant stipulated to pay the above loan in two or three instalments within a period of six months. It appears that in the month of December, 1973, the Rajasthan State Electricity Board (hereafter `the R.S.E.B.) revoked the tender work of M/s.Kamani Engineering Corporation. As a result of the above decision, M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation was forced to wind up its establishment at Udaipur. Naturally, the defendant was also likely to shift to Meerut at the Head Office of the above Company. When the plaintiff came to know about the intended departure of the defendant, he raised a demand but the latter did not pay the above amount. The plaintiff , therefore, sent a demand-notice to the defendant but the amount was not paid. A second notice was also issued but that also yielded no result. The plaintiff therefore, filed a suit in the court of learned District Judge, Udaipur for the recovery of Rs. 10500/-, the alleged loan amount. (3). The defendant filed his written statement. He denied to have received the consideration of the pro-note or the receipt and alleged that he did not execute the above documents voluntarily. According to him, the plaintiff brought pressure and threats and obtained his signature while he was in the Hospital, recouperating from an operation. 10500/-, the alleged loan amount. (3). The defendant filed his written statement. He denied to have received the consideration of the pro-note or the receipt and alleged that he did not execute the above documents voluntarily. According to him, the plaintiff brought pressure and threats and obtained his signature while he was in the Hospital, recouperating from an operation. Elaborating the above allegation, the defendant alleged that Shri Subhash Chandra, brother of the plaintiff, was a Junior Engineer employed in the R.S.E.B. and stationed at Udaipur to supervise the contract work being executed by M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. The Work Measurement Certificates in respect of the above work were to be submitted to Shri Subhash Chandra and unless he signed the same, the bills for payment were not prepared. In other words, Shri Subhash Chandra, brother of the plaintiff, was in a position to influence as regards the payment of bills prepared in respect of the above work of the Corporation. The defendant then alleged that when the R.S.E.B. revoked the contract and the defendant was asked to report at the Head Office of the Corporation at Meerut, Shri Subhash Chandra came to him and demanded money which the defendant used to pay at a certain percentage in order to obtain his signature on the Work Measur- ment Certificates. According to the defendant, the commission of Shri Subhash Chandra computed in the above manner came to Rs. 10500/-. The plaintiff and his brother Subhash Chandra came and asked the defendant to execute a pro- note in favour of the plaintiff but the latter refused to oblige them. Thereupon Subhash Chandra threatened him with dire consequences in case he did not do whatever was asked to him. Since the defendant was suffering from jaundice and had undergone an operation for piles, he was afraid of Shri Subhash Chandra. Under his threat and fear, he put his signatures on Exhibits 1,2 and 3. (4). Thus, according to the defendant, he was compelled to execute the Exhibits 1,2 and 3 as a result of serious threats administered by Shri Subhash Chandra. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Udaipur on 10.12.1973, was operated upon for piles on 20.12.1973 and remained as an indoor patient there upto 30.12.1973. Since the defendant was a native of Akola, Maharashtra, he fell prey to the threats of the plainfiff. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Udaipur on 10.12.1973, was operated upon for piles on 20.12.1973 and remained as an indoor patient there upto 30.12.1973. Since the defendant was a native of Akola, Maharashtra, he fell prey to the threats of the plainfiff. The defendant also averred that the consideration of the pro-note was against the public policy inasmuch as it repre- sented the commission which Shri Subhash Chandra would have got for clearing the Work Measurement Certificates in respect of the work done by M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation, of which the defendant was a Field Manager. It was also pleaded that the pro-note bears the adhesive stamps which have not been cancelled as required by law and thus, the alleged suit pro-note was in- sufficiently stamped and was not admissible in evidence, so as to form the basis of the suit. (5). The defendant later amended his written statement and incorporated the plea that the document Ex.3 contravened the provisions of Sec. 15 of the Stamps Act and further that the Exhibits 1,2 and 3 are, in fact, one document and, that the Ex.3 effected material alteration in the pro-note. As a result of material alteration effected by Ex.3, this document also was required to be stamped and without those stamps, the documents became in- admissible in evidence. For this reason, the plaintiff could not have based his suit on the strength of Exhibits 1 or 2. (6). On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were struck by the trial court: "1. Whether the plaintiff and his brother Engineer got signed, from the defendant the documents brought written by undue influence and giving him threatening and details of which are given in para 9(a) to 9(i) of the written statement and then these documents have been made the suit pro-note the receipt and agreement which are without consideration? D 2. Whether the disputed pronote is in-admissible in evidence as adhesive stamps have been fixed on it and they have not been cancelled in accordance with law ? D 2(b). Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for reasons mentioned in para No.12(a) of the written statement ? 3. Relief." (7). The learned District Judge after appreciating the evidence of the parties, decided the issue No.1 in favour of the defendant. D 2(b). Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for reasons mentioned in para No.12(a) of the written statement ? 3. Relief." (7). The learned District Judge after appreciating the evidence of the parties, decided the issue No.1 in favour of the defendant. In an elaborate judgment, the learned District Judge analysed the various attending circumstances, the relationship between the defendant and Shri Subhash Chandra brother of the plaintiff, the physical condition of the defendant at the relevant time and ,concluded that the plaintiff, who was a medical student at the relevant time, cannot be accepted to be in possession of the money which was allegedly advanced to the defendant. The learned District Judge analysed the origin of the above amount and concluded that it was improbable that the plaintiff who was handed over Rs. 15000/- by his ailing father, did not deposit the same in a Bank but kept the same hidden under his gadda (bedding) in a Hostel room. Even when the plaintiff lefts the Hostel room the money lay hidden under the above gadda. According to the plaintiff he even did not disclose this fact to his brother Subhash Chandra. The learned Judge also wondered as to why the plaintiff could part with the above money, which was required by him badly for his future career,by advancing a loan, to a person who was not friendly to him. According to the evidence available on record, there was a mere casual acquaintence between the plaintiff and the defendant. (8). The learned trial Judge further recorded that it was also intriguing that a student could advance so much loan to a rather stranger, who apparently had no means to re-pay the same immediately or in near future and, that too without interest. He agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the consideration of the above document (pro- note), in fact, was the amount of the commission calculated by Shri Subhash Chandra on the Work Measurement Certificates cleared by him in respect of the above work by M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. Since the above amount was not paid by the defendant for the obligation of Shri Subhash Chandra, who cleared the Work Measurement Certificates,the plaintiff and his brother Subhash Chandra pressurised the defendant to execute a pro-note representing the above amount of commission as loan. Since the above amount was not paid by the defendant for the obligation of Shri Subhash Chandra, who cleared the Work Measurement Certificates,the plaintiff and his brother Subhash Chandra pressurised the defendant to execute a pro-note representing the above amount of commission as loan. Initially the defendant stood to his ground but when the threats assumed serious proportion he yielded and put his signatures on Exhibits 1,2 and 3. At that time, the defendant was disturbed on account of felling health. (9). Regarding issue No.2(a) the learned District Judge stated that since the defendant had written his name and crossed the stamps on Ex.1, it was a compliane of Sec. 12 of the Stamps Act inasmuch as this mode was also an effectual manner of cancelling the stamps. He, therefore, decided issue No.2(a) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. (10). Regarding issue No. 2(b) , he observed that the document Ex.3 was written on the back of Ex.1 and since it contained a stipulation of paying the debt within six months in two or three instalments, had amounted to a material alteration. Ex.3, therefore, required to be stamped as a promissory note and since Ex.3 did not bear any stamp, it became in-admissible in evidence. He held that as a result of material alteration Ex.3 was invested with the character of a pro-note and as per Sec.14 of the Stamps Act, no second instrument chargeable with duty shall be written upon a piece of stamp paper upon which an instrument chargeable with duty had already been written. He, therefore, held that Ex.3 was written in controvention of the provisions of Sec. 14 of the Stamps Act. (11). In this respect, the learned District Judge heavily relied upon decision in Johar Mal Behari Lal v. RMPM Chettiya (1). He distinguished the other case law cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff . He also repelled the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that since Ex.3 has already been exhibited and admitted in evidence it cannot now be held that the document being not properly stamped was inadmissible in evidence. He further held that since the suit is based on Ex.3 , which was not properly stamped, the suit was liable to be dismissed. In view of the above observations, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, with costs. (12). He further held that since the suit is based on Ex.3 , which was not properly stamped, the suit was liable to be dismissed. In view of the above observations, the learned District Judge dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, with costs. (12). It may be stated that when the instant appeal was admitted and the record of the original suit was requisitioned from the learned District Judge, Udaipur , the latter informed that parts B,C and D of the file were weeded out. On receipt of this report, this Court on 20.3.1987 ordered for the re-construction of the file. After that certain copies of the documents were filed by the parties and eventually the Court ordered for hearing of the case. (13). I have heard the learned counsel for the either parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has very vehemently challenged the findings recorded by the learned District Judge about Exhibits 1,2 and 3, that they are without proper consideration. He submitted that a heavy burden lay on the defendant to prove the want of consideration. He further submitted that though Subhash Chandra was brother of the plaintiff and was an Engineer in RSEB and posted at Udaipur at the relevant time, there was no question of taking any un-due advantage in respect of the contract work executed by M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation, allotted by the RSEB. Subhash Chandra did his job and if the Work Measurement Certificates were in order, the same were cleared There was absolutely no question of charging commission and the defendant was never obliged to grease palm of Shri Subhash Chandra. The learned counsel contended that it was, therefore, pre-posturous to suggest that when the work contract was revoked by the RSEB and the defendant was asked to report back to the Headquarters at Meerut, the defendant executed the above document in favour of the plaintiff. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is assumed that Shri Subhash Chandra was deliberately with- holding the clearance of the Work Measurement Certificates, the effected party was M/s.Kamani Engineering Corporation. The defendant was in no way adversely affected by the matter. Hence it was sheer impossibility that the defendant in order to seek undue advantage from Shri Subhash Chandra agreed to bribe him. In that case, the matter would be essentially between Subhash Chandra and the M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. The defendant was in no way adversely affected by the matter. Hence it was sheer impossibility that the defendant in order to seek undue advantage from Shri Subhash Chandra agreed to bribe him. In that case, the matter would be essentially between Subhash Chandra and the M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. The defendant had no part to play in the above deals. Hence, even if the defendant was threatened, he was not supposed to yield to them. He would have definitely made a complaint to the Police about the harassment by Shri Subhash Chandra. Further, when the plaintiff served two notices of demand on the defendant, the latter kept mum and did not care to reply to any of the notices. This clearly shows that the defendant had taken loan by executing Exhibits 1,2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. He also submitted that the plaintiff has offered a very plausible explanation regarding the fact that he was in possession of the money out of which he advanced a loan of Rs.10500/- to the defendant. (14). The learned counsel also assailed the findings of the learned District Judge about the fact that by executing Ex.3, the provisions of Sec.14 of the Stamps Act were offended . He further stated that it is also wrong to say that by executing Ex.3 a material alteration occured, rendering the second document liable to be stamped as pro-note. (15). Learned counsel for the defendant fully supported the judgment of the learned District Judge. He referred to the judgment and submitted that the learned District Judge has taken pains to analyse each and every circumstance relevant for deciding the issue No.1 . He examined the relationship of Subhash Chandra with the defendant and the influence which Subhash Chandra yielded over the defendant. He also analysed that it was not at all proved satisfactory as to how the plaintiff, being a medical student, was in possession of such a huge amount. The learned counsel then contended that there was no compelling circumstance also which could have persuaded the plaintiff to have advanced the above loan to the defendant, who was not a friend. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was very formal in nature. The learned counsel then contended that there was no compelling circumstance also which could have persuaded the plaintiff to have advanced the above loan to the defendant, who was not a friend. The relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant was very formal in nature. The learned District Judge has very aptly remarked that the above amount was given to the plaintiff by his father in order to defray his expenses for prosecuting his medical studies and also for establishing his medical clinic. Thus, the amount entrusted to the plaintiff was very vital for his present and future needs and no rational and prudent person will part with such money so easily. The learned counsel also submitted that Subhash Chandra was instrumental in clearing the Work Measurement Certificates in respect of the work executed by M/s . Kamani Engineering Works for seeking payment of the bills. Shri Subhash Chandra charges a fixed percentage for clearing the above measurement certificates. When the work contract was revoked and the defendant was asked to report at the Headquarter at Meerut, Subhash Chandra got panicky and brought all sorts of pressures upon the defendant to execute the above documents. Since the defendant was placed in very adverse circumstances he yielded to the pressure and executed the above mentioned documents. The documents are, therefore, without consideration. (16). Regarding the finding on issue No.2(b) the learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has submitted that the learned District Judge concluded that the tenor of Exhibits 1 and 3 is entirely different. Whereas Ex.1 was a pro-note according to which the amount was liable to be paid on demand, by Ex.3 the plaintiff allowed a time of six months to the defendant to pay- off the loan in two or three instalments. Hence, by executing Ex.3 at the same time, had effected a material alteration. This rendered it essential that the latter document Ex.3 should also have been properly stamped. Since Ex.3, after assuming the character of a pro-note, did not bear any stamps, it became in- admissible in evidence. The plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to base his claim on the strength of Exhibits 1,2 or 3. (17). I have considered the rival arguments and critically gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge. First I may notice the facts regarding which there is no dispute. The plaintiff, therefore, was not entitled to base his claim on the strength of Exhibits 1,2 or 3. (17). I have considered the rival arguments and critically gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge. First I may notice the facts regarding which there is no dispute. At the rele- vant time, the defendant was a Field Engineer in the employment of M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. Shri Subhash Chandra, brother of the plaintiff, was employed as Junior Engineer in the R.S.E.B. At the relevant time, M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation was executing the work of erecting electric poles on Debari-Sirohi road. The defendant was supervisor for the above work. It is also not in dispute that the Work Measurement Certificates were to be prepared in respect of the Work executed by the Corporation. The procedure in this connection was that the above certificates were to be checked and signed by Shri Subhash Chandra, Junior Engineer of the R.S.E.B. and the same were then to be submitted for payment of bills to the R.S.E.B. What I want to emphasize is that the clearance of the Work Measurement Certificates by Shri Subhash Chandra, brother of the plaintiff, was essential before payment could be made to the M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. (18). It was also not disputed that the plaintiff , at the relevant time, was a medical student and was residing in the Medical Hostel. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time, the defendant was ill and has been admitted in the Hospital as an indoor patient. (19). Now the first question that has to be decided in this case is that as to how the plaintiff was in possession of Rs.10500/- at the relevant time. The explanation offered by the plaintiff was that his father gave him Rs. 15000/- before his death in order to enable him to defray expenses of his studies and also for establishing a clinic thereafter. As such,the money, if at all given by his father,was very vital for the plaintiff. The expenses of his studies were to be meted out of the above amount. The above necessity was immediate and present. In those circumstances, it was not very easy and convenient for the plaintiff to part with such amount and advance a loan to a person who was not well-known to him. The expenses of his studies were to be meted out of the above amount. The above necessity was immediate and present. In those circumstances, it was not very easy and convenient for the plaintiff to part with such amount and advance a loan to a person who was not well-known to him. Admittedly , there was no compelling necessity for the plaintiff to advance a loan to the defendant. When the plaintiff was grilled in his cross examination as to how he kept the money after receiving the same from his father, the plaintiff gave explanation which is neither believable nor entitled to any credence. He explained that after receiving the money, he kept the same hidden under his `gadda (bedding) the above mode of preserving the money did not change even when he went out of the Hostel. Surely, this was not a safe and convenient mode of preserving the money. The plaintiff has not shown any difficulty in opening an account in the Bank and keeping the money there. It is really curious that a medical student, in possession of money given by his father and which was required badly for meeting out necessities of his immediate life, would so easily utilise the same for advancing a loan, to a person who was not well known to him and , who had apparently no means to pay - off the same easily or immediately. It may also be appreciated that according to the plaintiff, the defendant required the above money in order to make payment to labours, who were engaged for execution of the work of M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. The defendant, in order to rebut this fact, has produced Exhibits A2,A3,A4,A5 and A6, which are carbon copies of petty-cash statements which show that the defendant was in possession of enough cash to pay to the labours and he was not at all hard-pressed to borrow the money from somebody else in order to meet out the dues of the labours. Moreover , it is not clear as to why the defendant would feel so personally concerned with the payment of labours when the responsibility for making due payment to the labours was that of M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. It is also in evidence that at the relevant time the defendant was ill and suffering from jaundice. Moreover , it is not clear as to why the defendant would feel so personally concerned with the payment of labours when the responsibility for making due payment to the labours was that of M/s. Kamani Engineering Corporation. It is also in evidence that at the relevant time the defendant was ill and suffering from jaundice. He was an indoor patient and had also been operted upon for piles. The conclusion of the learned District Judge, therefore, that Shri Subhash Chandra and the plaintiff brought pressure on the defendant to execute the document, appears to be believable and possible. It is also given in evidence that the plaintiff did not disclose to Subhash Chandra, his brother , about the money given to him by their father. I, therefore, find myself in agreement with the conclusion of the learned District Judge that the defendant did not receive the consideration of Exhibits 1,2 and 3 from the plaintiff . The version of the defendant appears to be believable. (20). It may be stated that under Sec. 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a presumption is raised that a negotiable instrument is fully supported by consideration though it is obvious that this presumption is not conclusive but rebuttal at the instance of the party against whom it is sought to be resorted to by the person claiming a benefit within such presumption is open. In the instant case, in view of the facts found and the circumstances noticed, the above presumption is wholly rebutted. The conclusion drawn by the learned District Judge after surveying the attending circumstances of the case, cannot be assailed. It may also be noticed that the transaction was between the plaintiff and the defendant but Subhash Chandra played an important role in negotiating the transaction or making a demand of the payment of loan. He , being a third party, had no business to interniddle into the affairs of the parties. This clearly shows that Subhash Chandra was having some part in the whole business which probablises the averment of the defendant that since the amount of un-due commission demanded by Subhash Chandra remained un-paid , he administered threats to the defendant. I, therefore, find absolutely no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge on this issue. (21). I, therefore, find absolutely no ground to interfere with the findings of the learned District Judge on this issue. (21). So far as the issue No.2(b) is concerned , the findings of the learned District Judge cannot be sustained. Merely on the basis of the fact that the defendant executed an agreement Ex.3, which is on the back of the Exhibit 1, there was a material alteration as contemplated by Sec. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter `the Act of 1881) which rendered the pro- note Ex.1 void as against the party thereto , as the defendant was not a consenting party for the above material alteration. It was also not made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties. The learned Judge has further held that Ex.3 ought to have been written on a proper stamp paper but since no stamp paper was used, Ex.3 was not admissible in evidence. Section 87 of the Act of 1881 deals with the effect of material alteration, which in sum and substance, is that such alteration invalidates an instrument against any party thereto who has not consented to such alteration. In this connection, decision of Privy Council in Nathu Lal v. Gomti Kumar (2 ) may be referred to . Mr. M.R.Jayakar, J. observed as under : "A material alteration is one which varies the rights, liabilities or legal position of the parties ascertained by the deed in its original state or otherwise varies the legal effect of the instrument as origi- nally expressed, or reduces to ertainty some provisions which was originally unascertained and as such void, or may otherwise prejudice the party bound by the deed as originally executed." (22). However, if any alteration is made outside the body of a negotiable instrument, it cannot be considered to be an alteration in the instrument itself and would not, therefore, be hit by Sec. 87 of the Act of 1881. In the instant case, the pro-note is Ex.1. The entire pro-note has been completed only on one side of the paper. Exhibit 3 was admittedly written independently on the back of Exhibit 1. It may also appear that Ex.1 and Ex.3 are contemporeneous. In my opinion, the endorsement which was made on the back side of the pro-note Ex.1 does not form part of the negotiable instrument (Ex.1) . Exhibit 3 was admittedly written independently on the back of Exhibit 1. It may also appear that Ex.1 and Ex.3 are contemporeneous. In my opinion, the endorsement which was made on the back side of the pro-note Ex.1 does not form part of the negotiable instrument (Ex.1) . It is an independent transaction, un-connected with the pro-note in question . Merely because an endorsement has been made on the back side of the pro-note, it does not form part of the pro-note. As the endorsement in question is not part of the negotiable instrument, any alteration in the said endo- rsement cannot attract fury of Sec.87 of the Act of 1881. I, therefore, hold that by executing the endorsement or document Ex.3 on the back of pro- note Ex.1, the plaintiff cannot be indicted for making any actionable material alteration. The finding of the learned District Judge is, therefore, not in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 87 of the Act of 1881. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in the instant appeal and the same is hereby dismissed , with costs.