In the instant case, the promissory note had been filled with using two different inks for writing the amount of Rs. 35000, the digit 3 was written in blue ink and the subsequent 5000 were written in green ink. Taking note of this alteration the First Appellant Court set aside the decree of Trial Court , Justice C.V. Karthikeyan dismissed the second appeal and upheld the finding of the First Appellant Court.
Section 85 of the Negotiable Instruments Act says that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders it void as against anyone who is a party at the time of making such alteration does not consent for the same . Now when two separate inks are being used in a Negotiable Instrument , the same amounts to material alteration under section 85 of the above mentioned act and renders the same to be completely invalid.
The Madras High Court while dismissing the second appeal held that the material alteration of such kind is clearly visible to the naked eye and amount is the basic element of negotiable instruments which had been written in two separate inks leads a strong suspicion regarding the promissory note. It raises the suspicion that digit 3 has been later added after the defendant signed the promissory note if this would be the case the instrument will be void as against the appellant.
The appellant court found out that the First Appellant court have successfully appreciated Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and therefore the second appeal has no ground to be sustained which is now dismissed with costs.