UNDEELA GOWRINADH Vs. MUTYAM ANIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is preferred by the defendant in the suit whose objection for marking the document dated 12.9.1997 on behalf of the respondent herein, has been overruled.

(2.) The respondent herein was being examined as PW1 in the suit filed by him to recover certain amount from the defendant based on a document executed by the defendant on 12.9.1997 and when the said document is sought to be marked on behalf of the plaintiff, an objection has been raised for marking the said document on the ground that the document is not a "receipt", but is a "bond", as defined in terms of sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and consequently, it has not been properly stamped and unless it is impounded and penalty is levied thereon, it is inadmissible in evidence. This objection has been overruled by the Court below on the ground that the requirements of "bond" are absent and the document amounts to only an acknowledgment of the defendant to pay the amount mentioned under the said document to the plaintiff. On that basis, the Court construed the document as a mere "receipt", as defined in Section 2(23) of the 1899 Act. Against this order permitting the suit document to be marked, the present revision is preferred.

(3.) When I perused the suit document dated 12.9.1997, which is in Telugu language, it is not in dispute that the said document has been attested by as many as seven witnesses. Further, the recitals therein clearly disclose the obligation undertaken by the defendant/petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- without interest to the plaintiff/respondent. Most crucially, there is no undertaking contained in the said document that the amount mentioned therein is payable to order or bearer of the plaintiff. Therefore, Clause (b) of sub-section (5) of Section 2 is squarely attracted to the instrument in the instant case. As could be noticed, Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (5) of Section 2 contemplate three different and divergent situations. One contemplates payment of money subject to performance or forbearance thereof a specified act, while the second and third situations deal with an instrument attested by a witness undertaking to pay either money or to deliver grain or agricultural produce. There is, plainly, no common thread running in between them. Therefore, if Clause (b) thereof is attracted to an instrument, such an instrument is liable to be construed as a "bond", though the other two clauses may not be attracted, at the same time. As is well known, a promissory note is an instrument reduced to writing containing an unconditional undertaking signed by its maker, to pay a certain money only to, or order of another person or the bearer of the instrument. By containing the expressions "order of or bearer of, a promissory note containing the obligation to pay money to another person, renders the said instrument a negotiable instrument. If an instrument lacks that authority of negotiability, then the undertaking to pay money or to deliver grain or other agricultural produce, coupled with attestation by a witness, renders that instrument to be a bond. An instrument is required to be considered by taking into account the contents thereof and strictly applying to it the definition ascribed in the Stamp Act, while examining the same for purposes of stamp duty.