Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1331 (MAD)

Eastern Trading Company v. C. V. Sivasubramanian

2017-05-03

N.SATHISH KUMAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the learned trial Court decreeing the suit for Rs.3.00 lakhs with interest at 24% per annum the present appeal came to be filed by the defendant. Similarly, the plaintiff has filed Cross-Objection No.106 of 2013 challenging the decree and judgment of the learned trial Court disallowing the suit claim of Rs.2,80,000/- being the value of the money lent to the appellants/defendants in respect of transaction covered by post dated cheques under Ex.A17 to A39. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court. 2. Brief facts of plaintiff's case is as follows:- The first Defendant is the partnership firm, Defendants 2 and 3 are partners of the first Defendant firm, carrying on electrical goods business and garment exports. The defendants 2 and 3 are the blood brothers and are also cousin brothers of the plaintiff and they were in good terms. On 03.04.2000 the second and third defendants requested the plaintiff for financial help for carrying out business in the firm of the first defendant. The plaintiff taking into consideration of the relationship and due respect to the paternal uncle i.e. Defendants' father, during the month of April & May 2000, on various promissory notes dated 15.4.2000, 17.4.200, 19.4.2000, 20.4.2000, 23.4.2000, 25.4.2000, 26.4.2000, 29.4.2000, 2.5.2000, 3.5.2000, 4.5.2000, 6.5.2000, 7.5.2000 and 10.5.2000 advanced a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- in cash to the defendants. The defendants also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum. However, the defendants failed to pay interest as well as the principal. When the plaintiff insisted for payment of interest for the money borrowed on promissory notes, the second and third defendants informed the plaintiff that they are in heavy financial crisis in the business and to meet out the same they have decided to sell the properties of the partners and promised to pay interest from the sale proceeds. At the end of April 2002, the defendants again approached the plaintiff and represented that sale of property was still under negotiation, but the creditors were creating pressure on the defendants 2 and 3 to pay their dues and therefore requested the plaintiff to arrange further finance for interest at 36% p.a. for them and the sale will be finalized within 3 months and assured the repayment in August 2002. As per the request, the plaintiff had arranged Rs.30,000/- from one S.Durarraj on 5.5.2002 for which the defendants issued a cheque on 20.5.2002 in favour the said S.Durairaj. Similarly, another sum of Rs.30,000/- was arranged by the plaintiff from M/s. Clement Engineering Consultants on 10.8.2002 for which the defendants issued a cheque on 25.8.2002 in favour of M/s. Clement Engineering Consultants. Similarly the plaintiff also advanced a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- for which 22 cheques were issued by the second defendant for various amounts and dates between 24.9.2002 and 24.10.2002. Thereafter, the defendants have failed to repay the amount and the cheques issued by the second defendant when presented also dishonoured for insufficient funds. Therefore, the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.10,28,430/- as on 10th April, 2003. Hence the suit. 3. Denying the allegations in the plaint, it is the contention of the defendants that they borrowed a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- from the plaintiff and the plaintiff insisted the defendants to execute Demand Promissory Notes and also blank cheques in support of the said transaction and directed the defendants that the name, date and rate of interest columns of the relevant instruments/cheques be left blank. It is the contention of the defendants that the said pronotes and cheques were simultaneously executed in the manner as requested by the plaintiff, handed over to the plaintiff as incomplete documents in trust. The demand promissory notes and cheques had been issued only in respect of one and the same transaction that had been availed by them in the year 1997/1998. The plaintiff has treated the demand promissory notes and cheques for different transaction to save limitation and thereby seek to resurrect a time barred debt. Further the alleged execution of the pronotes by the second defendant at Chennai on 26.4.2000 and 2.5.2000 are also false. On that day the second defendant was at Dindugal to attend a hearing at the Judicial Magistrate's Court at Dindigal. It is further stated by the defendants that blank cheques had been issued by the defendants in the year 1997-98, the plaintiff having failed to present the said cheques for payment within three years from the date of the alleged loan said to have been advanced the debt was barred by limitation. Hence, it is the contention of the defendants that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Hence, it is the contention of the defendants that the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the plaintiff obtained promissory notes and blank cheques from the defendants? 3. Whether the defendants borrowed any amount from Mr.Durairaj and M/s.Clement Engineering Consultants? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.10,28,430/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a., as prayed for in the plaint? 5. What relief plaintiff is entitled? 5. On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 48 documents as Exs.A1 to A48. On the side of the defendants third defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked four documents as Exs.D1 to D4. 6. On the basis of the evidence and materials the learned trial Judge believed Exs.A1 to A14 pronotes and also Ex.A15 cheque issued to one Durairaj and the assignment made by the said Durairaj in favour of the plaintiff, decreed the suit only in respect of pronotes and Ex.A15 cheque for a sum of Rs.30,000/- totaling Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of Exs.A1 to A15 till the date of decree and thereafter 12% per annum till the date of realisation. However, disbelieved the other cheques based on the statement of accounts from the State Bank of Hyderabad. Aggrieved over the same the present appeal and Cross-Objection came to be filed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the pronotes and blank cheques were executed by the second defendant in the year 1997-98 for one and the same transaction which had been effected simultaneously. Whereas the plaintiff has filled up interest column in the pronotes without the consent of the defendants and the same is amount to material alteration. Hence, submitted that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount on the basis of the instruments which are materially altered. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged pronotes dated 26.4.2000 and 2.5.2000 stated to have been executed at Chennai has been falsified by the document that on the date the second defendant was in Dindigul to attend the Court hearing. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged pronotes dated 26.4.2000 and 2.5.2000 stated to have been executed at Chennai has been falsified by the document that on the date the second defendant was in Dindigul to attend the Court hearing. Hence, submitted that the same will probabilize the fact that pronotes and cheques were not executed in the year 2000 and 2002 as pleaded in the plaint. Hence prayed for allowing the appeal and for dismissal of the Cross-Objection. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgments:- 1. Lalam Sambayya v. Pattam Shemsherkhan [AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 337]; 2. Seth Tulsidoss Lalchand v. G.Rajagopal [ 1967 (2) MLJ 66 ]; 3. Verco Private Ltd., Padi, Saidapet Taluk v. Newandram Naraindas [ 1973 (2) MLJ 92 ]; 4. N.Narayanaswamy v. Madanlal [AIR 1982 Karnataka 227]. 8. Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent/plaintiff that admittedly the parties are close relatives and the defendants partnership firm was suffered heavy financial crisis and at that time the plaintiff taking into consideration of the close relationship in order to help his own cousin brother had advanced amount in the year 2002 on Exs.A1 to A14 pronotes and subsequently at the request of the defendants as there was some delay in selling the properties and creditors were pressing for the payment, the plaintiff in order to help the defendants, had advanced amount on the cheques. Taking advantage of the two different transactions the defendants set up a false plea. It is the contention of the Respondent that if really the plaintiff had intention to create the documents the demand promissory notes and cheques could have been created by anti-dating the same. The above conduct of the plaintiff clearly shows that the transaction is honest one. The second defendant who has signed and handed over the pronotes and cheques has not chosen to examine himself. Hence, now the third defendant who is not the signatory to the documents cannot attack the genuineness of the documents. Once the execution of pronotes and cheques were admitted by the defendants it is for them to establish that the pronotes and cheques were not supported by consideration. Hence the defendants have not dislodged the legal presumption attached to them under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Once the execution of pronotes and cheques were admitted by the defendants it is for them to establish that the pronotes and cheques were not supported by consideration. Hence the defendants have not dislodged the legal presumption attached to them under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Hence prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the defendants and for allowing the Cross-Objection filed by him. The learned counsel for the Respondent has also relied upon a Judgment of this Court reported in P.S.A. Thamotharan vs Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 96 Mad. and contended that to have validity for the Negotiable Instruments, such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque. A cheque could be filled up by anybody and if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned therein. 9. In the light of the above submissions, now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether Ex.A1 to A14 pronotes dated 15.4.2000 to 10.5.2000 were not executed by the defendants? 2. Whether the cheques Ex.A15 and Ex.A39 dated 20.5.2002 and 24.10.2002 were not issued by the defendants? 3. Whether the pronotes and cheques were suffered by material alteration? 4. To what relief the parties are entitled? 10. Points 1 to 4 :- The relationship between the parties are not in dispute. Similarly the defendants carrying on the business and partnership are also not in dispute. It is the case of the plaintiff that as the defendants' firm suffered financial crisis, at the request of the defendants, keeping in mind the close relationship between the parties, the plaintiff advanced various amounts in the month of April and May 2000 on pronotes Ex.A1 to A14, totaling a sum of Rs.2,70,000/-. The defendants also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 36% per annum. Similarly, it is the contention of the plaintiff that as the defendants decided to sell the partnership properties and the negotiations also was pending for the same, as the creditors of the defendants were pressing for the payment, at request of the defendants the plaintiff has also arranged loan of Rs.2,80,000/- in the year 2002, for which the defendants have issued cheques signed by the second defendant. 11. 11. Whereas it is the contention of the defendants that the cheques and pronotes were executed only in the year 1997-98 for a total amount of Rs.2,80,000/-, not as alleged by the plaintiff. There was no separate loan as alleged by the plaintiff. But it is the contention of the defendants that they have executed blank demand promissory notes and cheques at the request of the plaintiff in the year 1997-98. It is further contention of the defendants that in the pronotes and cheques the name, date and rate of interest column were left blank at the relevant time. Ex.A1 to A14 pronotes for various dates filed to show that the defendants have executed the pronotes from 15.4.2000 to 10.5.2000 for a total amount of Rs.2,70,000/-. 12. A careful perusal of Ex.A1 to A14, it can be seen that signature and amount in each pronote was in fact filled by the defendants. This aspect is not disputed. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that amounts have been filled up by the second defendant and other particulars have been filled up by the plaintiff in the presence of the second defendant. This evidence of P.W.1 that other aspects have been filled up by the plaintiff in the presence of the second defendant is not even denied. Further the second defendant who signed the documents and handed over to the plaintiff. However, he has not chosen to examine himself before the Court. Only third defendant has appeared and examined as D.W.1. In the cross-examination he has also admitted that pronotes and cheques were signed by his brother and handed over to the plaintiff and he has written the amount in those documents. Further he also did not deny the allegation that the cheques were issued by him in favour of one Vijaykamth for a sum of Rs.80,000/-. He has also admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants are cordial and there was no dispute between them. Therefore, once the second defendant signed and handed over the cheques and pronotes and also writing the amounts in figures and words by himself now it cannot be contended by the defendants that there is a material alteration. 13. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that other parts of the pronotes were filled in the presence of the second defendant. 13. It is the specific evidence of P.W.1 that other parts of the pronotes were filled in the presence of the second defendant. When the above evidence has not been challenged and not even denied, it has to be taken as admission on the part of the defendants. Therefore, once interest portion also filled up with the consent of the maker of the documents the party who executed the pronotes and cheques now cannot complain that rate of interest was incorporated at a later point of time without his consent. It is the contention of the defendants that they borrowed only Rs.2,80,000/- in the year 1997-98 at the relevant time only they have issued pronotes and cheques. To establish the above facts, absolutely there is no evidence forthcoming. Once the pronotes have been signed and handed over even as blank, it gives prima facie authority to the holder to complete the same, as per Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, now the defendant cannot take contrary stand. Normal human conduct of the parties also assume significance. According to the defendants they have issued only blank cheques and pronotes, the date and rate of interest column were filled up by the plaintiff with an intention to claim exorbitant amount by filling different money in the blank cheques and recover from the defendants. The conduct of the parties also show that the contention of the defendants cannot be true. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case as per Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 14. The manner in which several pronotes and cheques were given by the defendants on different dates for different amounts clearly show that in fact in the trade practice after borrowal of the amounts they issued cheques and pronotes. Once the execution of the Netogiable Instrument is admitted by the defendants the statutory presumption available under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act will come into operation in favour of the plaintiff as to the consideration, at date, time of acceptance, transfer and also the holder of the Negotiable Instrument is holder in due course. Once the execution of the Netogiable Instrument is admitted by the defendants the statutory presumption available under Section 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act will come into operation in favour of the plaintiff as to the consideration, at date, time of acceptance, transfer and also the holder of the Negotiable Instrument is holder in due course. It is not the case of the defendants that the plaintiff had obtained those documents by means of fraud or by coercion for unlawful consideration. Therefore, the statutory presumption applicable to the Negotiable Instruments Act squarely apply to the facts of this case. Once the execution of the Negotiable Instrument is admitted it is for the defendant to bring some rebutable evidence. The same may be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies to show that these documents were not supported by consideration. 15. On perusal of the entire evidence of D.W.1 and Exhibits D1 to D4 this Court is not able to find any evidence to show that legal presumption attached to the cheques and pronotes were dislodged by the defendants. Of course the defendants were able to point out that two of the pronotes namely Ex.A9 dated 2.5.2000 and Ex.A7 dated 26.4.2000 came to be executed by the second defendant in fact while he attended the Court hearing at Dindigul. To prove the above facts Ex.D3 xerox copy of the complaint before the Judicial Magistrate Court Dindigul was filed. However, No reason whatsoever was assigned by the defendants for not filing the certified copy of the complaint. A perusal of the endorsement made by the Judicial Magistrate on 26.4.2000 and 2.5.2000, would show that on both days the accused/second defendant was appeared before the Judicial Magistrate Court Dindigul. Though this document on the face of it shows as if it is impossible for the second defendant to execute the pronote on the same day at Chennai, this Court is of the view that mere presence of the second defendant before the Judicial Magistrate Court Dindigul at the relevant time itself cannot be a ground to hold that there was no possibility of executing pronotes on that day at Chennai. Endorsement of the Judicial Magistrate Court shows mere presence of the second defendant on two dates. Absolutely there is no mention about the time of his presence. Endorsement of the Judicial Magistrate Court shows mere presence of the second defendant on two dates. Absolutely there is no mention about the time of his presence. Normally the accused were called in the Court at hearing time from 10.30 A.M., and calling work would be completed before 11.00 A.M., or 11.30 A.M. Thereafter, the accused reaching to Chennai on the same day cannot be ruled out. Therefore, merely because he was present in the Judicial Magistrate Court Dindigul itself is not sufficient to hold that the second defendant was not present at Chennai on the same day after hearing before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Dindigul. Hence, this Court is of the view that the above document is not sufficient to dislodge the legal presumption. 16. The learned trial Court has also given undue importance to Ex.B1 statement of accounts of the first defendant to show that subsequent cheque leaves were issued in the year 1998 as per the accounts. Therefore, possibility of issuing cheques to the plaintiff in the year 2002 is very remote. The learned trial Court relied upon Ex.B1. This Court is of the view that Ex.B1 cannot be given credence for the simple reason that it is only Xerox copy of the accounts and there was no explanation as to non filing of original statement. It is further to be noted that even the Xerox copy, computer printout also not attested by the Banker as required by the Bankers' Books of Evidence Act. Before the amendment of the Evidence Act and Bankers Book of Evidence Act any document ledger or statements to be obtained from the banks, the same would be admissible only when those documents are certified or attested as per the Bankers Books of Evidence Act. Without such certificate, the document cannot be received as evidence. After amendment of the Bankers Books of Evidence Act and Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act all the computer printouts are required to be filed as evidence after obtaining compulsory certificate as required under Section 65B of the Act. Without that, these documents cannot be received in evidence. The defendants have not made out any ground to file the secondary evidence. Whereas they simply filed Xerox copy of the so called statement of Accounts which is also not authenticated by the Banker. Therefore, Ex.B1 cannot be given importance. 17. Without that, these documents cannot be received in evidence. The defendants have not made out any ground to file the secondary evidence. Whereas they simply filed Xerox copy of the so called statement of Accounts which is also not authenticated by the Banker. Therefore, Ex.B1 cannot be given importance. 17. Similarly, Ex.B2 is the Xerox copy of the document to show that they closed out the business in the year 2000 itself. Whereas D.W.1 in the cross-examination has clearly deposed that even after closing over the business the firm was continuing the affairs and also issued deposit amount and other aspects. Therefore, Ex.B2 is not sufficient to help the case of the defendants. Once execution of the pronotes admitted, taking into consideration of natural events and human conduct and trade practice, this Court easily presume that cheques and pronotes were issued only in a trade practice and amount has been borrowed by the defendants only for the purpose of business activities. Ex.A16 the dishonoured cheque alone go to show that assignment alleged to have made by one Cement Engineering Consultants in favour of the plaintiff could not have been made on 15.9.2002 as the phone number of Cement Engineering Consultants was changed to 8 digits only in the end of 2002. Thus the contention of the defendants have some force. Therefore, the trial Court taking into consideration that assignment could not have been valid, has rejected the claim of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.30,000/- under Ex.A16. This Court is also not inclined to accept Ex.A16 in view of the discrepancy in phone number and doubtful in assignment. As far as the other cheques are concerned, absolutely, there is no materials whatsoever brought on record to dislodge the legal presumption attached to the defendants. In this regard it is relevant to rely upon the judgment reported in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Payrelal [ (1999) 3 SCC 35 ], wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:- “Once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. Such a presumption is rebuttable. The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would dis-entitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument. The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. In such an event the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon all the evidence led in the case including that of the plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his favour. The court may not insist upon the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by leading direct evidence as existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led is to be seen with a doubt. The bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the presumption the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which the court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.” 18. In P.S.A. Thamotharan vs Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 96 Mad., it has been held as follows:- “To have a validity of negotiable instrument such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque. In P.S.A. Thamotharan vs Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd., 2005 (1) JCC (NI) 96 Mad., it has been held as follows:- “To have a validity of negotiable instrument such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque. A cheque could be filled up by anybody, if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned therein.” The above judgments are squarely applicable to the facts of the case. 19. In Seth Tulsidoss Lalchand v. G.Rajagopal [ 1967 (2) MLJ 66 ], it has been held as follows: “Even though Section 80 of Negotiable Instruments Act provides that where a promissory note does not express the rate of interest payable thereon, six per cent, interest shall be payable, any alteration of the instrument by the promisee inserting rate of interest would amount to a material alteration. Hence, wherein a promissory note executed the rate of interest was left blank and it was filled up later, it will be a material alteration invalidating the instrument. A promissory note which does not mention the rate of interest cannot be said to be an incomplete instrument enabling the promisee to fill up the same so as to complete the instrument within the meaning of section 20 of the Act.” 20. In N.Narayanaswamy v. Madanlal [AIR 1982 Karnataka 227], it has been held as follows:- “Where in a printed pronote form all the particulars were filled up but the interest column was left blank it was not an incomplete document under S.20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act entitling the promisee to fill it up since S.80 made a specific provision that in such a case interest at 6% p. a. was payable. The filling up of the note by the promisee without the consent of the promisor would render it void under S.87. In instant case the blank was filled up with words “1½ % per mensem” AIR 1974 Mad 4 and (1967) 2 Mad LJ 66.” 21. In Lalam Sambayya v. Pattam Shemsherkhan [AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 337], it has been held as follows:- “Under Section 19, Explanation I of the Limitation Act an acknowledgment of a subsisting debt addressed to a person other than the person entitled to the property or fight is sufficient. In Lalam Sambayya v. Pattam Shemsherkhan [AIR 1963 Andhra Pradesh 337], it has been held as follows:- “Under Section 19, Explanation I of the Limitation Act an acknowledgment of a subsisting debt addressed to a person other than the person entitled to the property or fight is sufficient. -- But Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act contemplates a promise made in writing to pay a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. Under the Limitation Act an acknowledgment made in writing signed by the party and addressed to a person other than the person entitled to the property or right would save a subsisting debt, but Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act contemplates a promise made in writing and signed by the person in favour of the creditor. The latter postulates a novation of the contract while the former provides for mere acknowledgment. In order to bring a deposition within the meaning of a fresh contract, the necessary ingredients of 'proposal and acceptance' with the consciousness of me purpose for which the contract is being entered into have to be clearly brought out. Hence, a statement made by the debtor as a witness in the Court admitting a time-barred debt does not fulfill the requirements of S. 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872, when it is nothing more than an acknowledgment not involving any deliberate undertaking to renew a time-barred claim, not made to the creditor and not showing that he has accepted the offer.” 22. In A.R. Banerjee v. State and another (Crl.M.C.No.3742/2013) Delhi High Court. “10. At this juncture, it is relevant to reproduce Sections 20 and 87 of the Act. “20. Inchoate stamped instruments-Where one person signs and delivers to another a paper stamped in accordance with the law relating to negotiable instruments then in force in [India], and either wholly blank or having written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument, he thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof to make or complete, as the case may be, upon it a negotiable instrument, for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp. The person so signing shall be liable upon such instrument, in the capacity in which he signed the same, to any holder in due course for such amount: provided that no person other than a holder in due course shall recover from the person delivering the instrument anything in excess of the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder. Crl.M.C. No. 3742/2013 Page 5 of 7 87. Effect of material alteration - Any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void as against anyone who is a party thereto at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto, unless it was made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties; Alteration by indorsee.- And any such alteration, if made by an indorsee, discharges his indorser from all liability to him in respect of the consideration thereof. The provisions of this section are subject to those of sections 20, 49, 86 and 125.” 14. In the case of “P.S.A. Thamotharan vs. Dalmia Cement (P) Ltd.”, 2005 (1) JCC (NI)96 Madras it was held that to have a validity of negotiable instrument such as cheque, it is not mandatory and no law prescribes that the body of the cheque should also be written by the signatory to the cheque. A cheque could be filled up by anybody, if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque, accepting the amount mentioned therein.” 23. A careful perusal of the above judgments it is very clear that the interest column in the pronote was filled up by the promisee without the consent of the promiser, therefore, the Court has held that pronotes are void. Whereas the evidence of P.W.1 clearly show that he has filled up the same in the presence of the second defendant who has executed the document. The second defendant has also not appeared before the Court to deny the above aspects and further the above evidence of P.W.1 that interest aspect is also filled in the presence of the second defendant is not denied. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even though the interest column was filled by the plaintiff which is saved by the second part Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The points are answered accordingly. 24. Therefore, this Court is of the view that even though the interest column was filled by the plaintiff which is saved by the second part Section 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The above judgments are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The points are answered accordingly. 24. In the result, the appeal filed by the defendants is disposed of modifying the interest awarded by the learned trial Court on the decree amount of Rs.3.00 lakhs as 6% per annum from the date of Ex.A1 to A15 till the date of realization. The Cross-Objection filed by the Plaintiff is allowed in part decreeing the suit under Ex.A17 to Ex.A39 cheques. The suit is decreed for a further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of issuance of cheques namely Exs.A17 to A39 till the filing of suit, thereafter 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization, with costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 are closed.