107-NLR-NLR-V-31-MUTTUSAMI-PILLAI-et-al.-v.-MOHAMADU-et-al.pdf
( 373 )
Present: Fisher C.J. and Drieberg J,
MUTTUSAMI PILLAI et al v. MOHAMADU et al17—D. C. Colombo, 29,362.
Promissory note—Blank stampedpaper—Authority to convert into
promissory note—Insertion of date—Material alteration—Bills.of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927, $. 20 (2).
Where the defendant gave the plaintiff a blank stamped papersigned by him with authority to convert it into a promissory noteto cover the amount of his indebtedness to the plaintiff,—
Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to insert as the date of the:io{c the * date on which he converted the stamped paper into apromissory note.
^^PPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo.
On December 31,1927, the, defendants, who had certain
Transactions with the plaintiff, signed a blank stamped paper andgave it to the plaintiff upon the agreement that it was to be convertedby the plaintiff into a promissory note which was to be security fortheir indebtedness to him.. For this purpose they gave him expressauthority to fill up the note for any amount not exceeding Rs. 3,000.recoverable with interest at 18 per cent. On May 21, 1928, theplaintiff inserted the amount “ Rs. 3,000 with interest at 18 percent.,” filled in the date “ 21st May, 1928,” and sued the defendantsupon the note. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the plaintiffhad materially altered the note by the insertion of the date as May 21,3928, and that- the note was vitiated in consequence under section64 (1) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927, . The•learned District Judge upheld the defendants’ contention on theground that the plaintiff had no authority to insert any other datethan December 31, 1927, and dismissed the plaintiff’s action withcosts. The plaintiff appealed.
H. V. Perera (with him Gratiaen), for plaintiffs, appellants.—Thereis no material alteration of a promissory note within the meaning ofthe Bills of Exchange Ordinance, No. 25 of 1927. The defendants
1930
C 374 )
1930 did not give the plaintiff a completed note but a blank stampedMuttusami paper with a simple signature on it, which was to be converted intoM^hamahu a no^e*delivery of such a paper gives the person who receives
it, a primd facie authority to make good any material omission ashe thinks fit in order to concert it into a note (Bills of ExchangeOrdinance, section 20). The plaintiff was entitled to insert anydate the stamp would carry (Brian v. Quackerstrin,l Cafuppiahv. Dorasamy 2). In any event the date “ 21st May. 1928,” was correctlyinserted. It was the date on which the blank stamped paper wasconverted into a complete promissory note.
Nadarajah (with Rajapakse), /or defendants, respondents. -t-K oquestion of implied authority arises in this case. The defendantsgot the plaintiff's express authority to convert the blank paper intoa promissory note in a particular way. The only date which theplaintiff was entitled to insert was December 31, 1927, the date onwhich the blank note was delivered to him by the defendants.
March 20, 1930. Fisher C.J.—
In this case the defendants gave the plaintiff on December ill,1927, a blank stamped paper upon the agreement that it was to bemade into a promissory note which was to be security for theindebtedness of the defendants to the plaintiff. The learned Judgefound that subsequently the plaintiff inserted the amount Rs. 3,00uwith interest at 18 per cent, and Med in the date, May 21, 1928.The learned Judge says in his judgment: ” The defendants agreedto the plaintiff filling up the pote for an amount not exceedingRs. 3,000, and recovering the amount actually due from them withinterest at 18 per cent. It was in pursuance of that agreementthat the blank note was granted—to enable the plaintiff to sue onit and recover the amount with interest at 18 per cent/' The learnedJudge dismissed the action on the ground that the insertion of thedate, May 21, 1928, was a ” material alteration ” which vitiated thenote. He says: 14 The only evidence is that the note was grantedon December 31, 1927, but that date was not filled in. There isno evidence that the plaintiff was authorized to fill in any otherdate, nor is there evidence to show how the plaintiff came to fillin the date as May 21, 1928. Section 64 (2) of the Bills of ExchangeAct states that any alteration of the date is a material alteration.It may be that the insertion of a date nearly five months later thanthe true date of issue of the note is to the defendants' advantage,but it does not matter whether the alteration in any way benefitsthem or not …. The alteration was made without thedefendants' authority or assent, and since it is a material alteration
the ©ofc$,is vitiated.”
* (j&tef l*£.r.153. 434.
2 17 N. L. R. 103.
(. 875 )
In my opinion this finding is incorrect. It is erroneous to say 1980that December 81 was the date of issue. There is no reason for ^isheb CJ
saying that the note was not filled up “ within a reasonable time M
within the meaning of section 20 (2) of the Bills of Exchange Act,
1882, which is reproduced in section 20 (2) of the Bills of Exchange MohamaduOrdinance, 1927, and subject to compliance with that provisionthe plaintiff must be taken to have been authorized by the defendantsto insert whatever date he pleased (see Caruppiah v. Dotammy1).
In that view the date of issue is the date when the blank documentwas invested with all the features of a promissory note. The insertion,of the date therefore was not a material alteration, it was not infact an alteration at all. For these reasons I think the learnedJudge's decree must be set aside and decree entered for the plaintifffor the amount claimed with costs in this Court and in the Courtbelow.
Drikberg J-—I agree.
Appeal allowed.