M.S. ANIRUDHAN versus THE THOMCOS BANK LTD.

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 63 · Decided: 14-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

l S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
63 
"Entries with respect to the following Khasra 
Nos. may be made in the revenue papers in the 
name of Teja Singh, co-sharer No. 5 to the 
tune of one share and Bhai Jhandha Singh 
co-sharer No. 2, 
to the tune of seven shares: 
324/3.16, 328/5.06 etc. 
The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that 
there was a presumption in favour of the correctness 
of the entry and the appellant had failed to rebut the 
same. The judgment of the High Court is correct and 
the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. 
Appeal dismissed. 
M. S. ANIRUDHAN 
v. 
THE THOMCO'S BANK LTD. 
(J. L. KAPUR, A. K. SARKAR AND 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, .lJ.) 
Guarantee-Surety-Alterat-ion of terms of letter of guar-
antee by principal debtor-Discharge of surety's liability. 
The appellant agreed to stand surety for an overdraft 
allowed by the respondent Bank to S. A blank form of guarantee 
was given by the Bani< to S, who then had it filled up by the 
appellant stating thc maximum amount which he guaranteed 
as Rs. 25000/-. 
When S brought the letter of guarantee duly 
signed by the appellant and himself to the Bank the latter refu-
sed to accept the guarantee up to that limit as it was not 
prepared to give S accommodation for a larger sum than 
Rs. 20000/- and wanted it to be limited to Rs. 20000/-. S then 
made alterations in the letter with the amount of the maximum 
limit corrected to Rs. 20000/- and gave it to the Bank, In a suit 
instituted by the Bank against the principal debtor, S, and the 
appellant on the hasis of the contract of 
guarantee for 
lls. 20000/-, the appellant pleaded that as the document was 
altered without his knowledge or consent, he was discharged 
from his liability. 
Held, (per Kapur aud Hidayatullah, lJ., Sarkar, J., 
dissenting), that the appellant was not discharged from his 
liability under the contract of guarantee. 
1962 
< urhakJh Sing,h 
v. 
Nikka Singh 
Subba Rao, J. 
1962 
Sr.ptrmbtr, 14 
1962 
M. S. Anirudhan 
v. 
The Thomco's Bonk 
ltd. 
Kapur, J. 
64 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
per Kapur, J.-S was actin.I{ for and on behalf of the 
appellant since it was at his· i11stance that the appellant was 
standing surety and the appellant handed over the deed of gua-
rantee to S for the purpose of being given to the Bank. The plea 
of avoidance of contract by material alteration was of no avail to 
the appellant because the document was not altered while in 
posse'5ion of the promisee but was altered by S who was at the 
time acting as the agent of the appellant. 
per Sarkar, J.-The suit against the appellant as framed 
must fail. The altered document was not binding on the 
appeilant, for the 
alteration had not been made to carry 
out the intention of the parties. If the alteration .is. ignored 
ali immaterial, 
then the document creates no liability in 
the appellant, for the Bank refused to accept a guarantee on the 
terms contained in it before it was altered and therefore there 
was no contract made between the parties by the document. 
Further, the contrad sued ·upon is different from the contract 
which might have been made by acceptance of the document .as 
it stood before the alteration. The unaltered document. cannot 
establish the contract sued on. 
per Hidayatullah, J.-The document in this case could not· 
be said to have been materiallv altered because it was not al-
tered in such a mai:iner as to change its nature. The alteration 
was made by a co-executant who reduced not only his own 
liability but that of the surety also. 
The document was altered 
while in the possession of S, the very person who, as the agent 
of the surety, brought it to the Bank. The surety must be deemed 
to have held out Sas his agent for this purpose and this created 
an estoppel against the surety because the Bank believed that S 
had the authority. Accordingly, the alteration of the document 
did not save the surety from liability under it . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal 
No. 131 of 1961. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
September 30.. 1957, of the Kerala High Court in 
Appeal suit No. 19 of 1956 (T). 
T. N. Svl!rarruini,a Iyer, R. Mahalingier and 
M. R. Krishna Pillai, for the appellant. 
V. A. Seyid Muhammed, for the respondent. 
1962. September 14. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
KAPUR, J.-It is not necessary for me to give 
the facts of this case as they are set out in detail in the 
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
65 
judgments 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.