ANUROOP.R.V. Vs. L.WILSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXT .P1, order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Neyyattinkara on 30.11.2011 in O.S.No.320 of 2009 holding Exts.A1 and A2 as 'bonds' and directing payment of stamp duty and penalty accordingly is under challenge in this original petition.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, at a time when they were to be given employment in the Mary Matha College of Engineering and Technology of which the 1st respondent then was the chairman, the latter had received Rs.2,00,000.00 from the 1st petitioner and Rs.3,00,000.00 from the 2nd petitioner (allegedly) for development of the college and on the undertaking that at the time petitioners quit the job, the said amounts will be refunded to them free of interest. According to the petitioners, though they demanded refund of the amount at the time of resigning the job the amount was not refunded as agreed. Hence they sued for recovery of money.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Sub Judge has wrongly understood the decision in Viswanathan v. Leslie Philip (2010 (4) KLT 277). According to the learned counsel, if the liability is pre- existing and if the document only evidences the liability and it is agreed that the said liability will be discharged as referred to in the document, it can only be treated as an 'agreement' and not a 'bond'. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that as per Sec.2(a)(ii) of the Act, the document to become a bond must be attested by witnesses whereas Exts.A1 and A2 are not attested by any witness. Hence, the documents cannot come within the definition of 'bond', it is argued.