DIFFERENT INKS ON NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT MAY RENDER IT VOID

A recent judgment of the Madras High Court says that different inks on the negotiable instrument may render it void. This is as per the material alteration mentioned under Section 87 of the Act.

In 2007, the defendant named Kasi Pillai executed a promissory note for repayment in favour of the plaintiff named M Mallika. In 2010 the plaintiff had issued a notice for repayment. Therefore, she instituted a suit on the basis of the promissory note which was in her favor.

However, in appeal, the Court set aside the judgment of the lower Court and passed an order in favour of Pillai’s favour. So, she went for the second appeal before the High Court. The High Court also did not disturb the judgment of the first appellate Court. The defendant contended that the promissory note was fraudulent.

While pronouncing the Judgment, Justice CV Karthikeyan, noted that the amount of Rs 35,000 written in two different inks on the promissory note; the “3” in green ink and the “5,000” in blue ink.

Using 2 different inks in one promissory note raises the strong suspicious condition regarding the execution of the promissory note. As the digit ‘3’ written with different ink, it raises the doubt that it might have been written after the defendant had signed the promissory note.

Section 87 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 provides that any material alteration of a negotiable instrument renders the same void. This can be against anyone who is party at the time of making such alteration and does not consent thereto. Unless it made in order to carry out the common intention of the original parties.