CHANDRAKANT BALIRAM VAIDYA Vs. MADHAV CHHAGAN PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question is whether the document described as "Usanwar Pawati" (In Marathi, Usanwar Pawati ) produced by the defendant is a bond or whether it is merely an acknowledgement of a pre-existing liability.

(2.) THE bond has been defined by Section 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 as under :- "2(c)"bond" includes (i) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (ii) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby, a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (iii) any instrument so attested whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another."

(3.) BEARING in mind the above principles, it is seen that in so far as the present document is concerned, the defendant has acknowledged the liability for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and has expressly promised to repay the same within a period of one year and this promise has been incorporated in the document itself. In the said document, there is an acknowledgement of an ascertained amount with a further promise to pay the amount and the document is attested by the witnesses. Thus, the trial Court is clearly right in holding that the document is a bond and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the direction of the trial Court to impound the document under order XIII, Rule 8 of C.P.C.