AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Muthusami Aiyar, J.—This was a suit to recover the price of goods sold and delivered for which defendant executed document A. The
Subordinate Judge considered the clause therein which purports to reserve a claim under a former Katchat to be a subsequent and fraudulent
interpolation and thereupon dismissed this snit with costs. Relying on the decision in Gogun Chunder Ghose v. Dhuronidhur Mundul, I. L. R 7 C
616 he observed that the fraudulent addition to the document vitiated the whole claim. The alteration in regard to the former Katchat in no way
tends to vary or enlarge the liability under the sales upon which this suit is based and it is therefore not material to the present claim, The intention
was to rely on the alteration as evidence in support of a claim on prior sales which formed the subject of Small Cause Suit No. 473 of 1890, In the
case reported in 7 Calcutta series, the alteration was material because it gave the bond there sued on an operation distinct from the operation it had
in its original form. A document is not invalidated if an attestation is fraudulently added to it when such attestation is not necessary to its validity.
The principle laid down by Campbell C.J. in Gardner v. Walsh, 5 E & B 83 is that the defendant is discharged from his liability if the altered
instrument, supposing it to be genuine, would operate differently from the original instrument. The fraudulent alteration must be relevant to the
transaction sought to be enforced and not relate to a matter foreign to it. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is set aside and he is directed to
restore the suit to his file and dispose of it on the merits. The costs of this petition will abide and follow the result and be provided for in the revised
judgment.