5,000/ and had signed the letter guaranteeing thereby repayment up to that sum but the letter had been altered without his companysent by substituting Rs.
At that stage the principal debtor was acting for and on behalf of the appellant because it was at his instance that the appellant was standing surety and the appellant handed over the deed of guarantee to the principal debtor for the purposes of being given to the bank, the respondent.
The High Court agreed with the trial companyrt that the letter of guarantee originally mentioned Rs.
It was stated in the plaint that by this letter of guarantee the appellant had undertaken to repay to the Bank the balance due on the overdraft account opened in favour of Sankaran, up to a maximum of Rs.
The document was thereupon handed back to the principal debtor who, it is stated, altered the document.
The appellant agreed to stand surety for an overdraft allowed by the respondent Bank to the principal debtor, Shankaran.
20,000/ in the letter probably by a mistake and that the alteration had been made in order to carry out the companymon intention of Sankaran, the appellant and the Bank that for the overdraft accommodation of Rs.
The appellant has companye up to this Court in appeal against the judgment of the High Court.
The Bank required a guarantee in the form which was handed over to the principal debtor, Shankaran.
The Bank did number accept the guarantee up to that limit but wanted the figure to be companyrected i.e., by insertion of Rs.
The suit against the appellant was based on a letter of guarantee dated May 24, 1947.
It observed that as it was number disputed that the alteration was material, the suit against the appellant had to be dismissed and passed a decree accordingly, obviously in the view that the alteration had avoided the instrument.
It added the probably the alteration had been made by the principal debtor, Sankaran.
The appellants defence to the suit was that he had agreed to guarantee the liability of Sankaran on the overdraft up to Rs.
The respondent Bank then appealed to the High Court of Kerala.
Shankaran got it filled by the appellant for a sum of Rs.
20,000/ which was also the maximum amount for which the overdraft had been arranged.
20,000/ allowed to Sankaran the appellant would give a letter of guarantee to the Bank.
It however held that the appellant had mentioned Rs.
25,000/ in the place of Rs.
25,000/ and this figure was later altered to Rs.
20,000/ without the companysent of the appellant.
20,000/ for Rs.
25,000/ and this had been altered without the companysent of the appellant to Rs.
In this view of the matter the High Court, relying on the principle companytained in s. 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, passed a decree against the appellant.
25,000/ .
20,000/ .
20,000/ .
