PERUMALLA MALLESHAM Vs. CHENNAMANENI SUMANYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 14-3-2006 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar in O.S. No.557 of 2004 upholding the objection raised by the defendant as to stamp duty payable on the suit document dated 19-5-2003.

(2.) The revision petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of Rs.70,000/- allegedly due from the defendants/respondents herein. The plaintiff pleaded in the plaint that the husband of the 1st defendant by name Kamalakar Rao borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the plaintiff on 19-5-2003 and executed a document on the same day agreeing to pay the said amount on demand. It is also pleaded that the said Kamalakar Rao issued a cheque bearing No.675910 dated 19-5-2003 for a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards collateral security. However, he evaded payment of the said amount in spite of several demands made by the plaintiff and recently he died intestate leaving behind the defendants, being his wife and children. It is pleaded that the self-acquired properties as well as joint family properties of late Kamalakar Rao are in possession of the defendants by way of succession. Even the cheque issued by late Kamalakar Rao dated 19-5-2003 when presented in the Bank was bounced on account of insufficient funds. Hence, the suit for recovery of money due under the document dated 19-5-2003.

(3.) The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit claim. During the trial the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.I and sought to mark the document dated 19-5-2003 executed by late Kamalakar Rao as an exhibit claiming that it is a promissory note. However, an objection was raised on behalf of the defendants contending that the said document is a Bond but not Promissory Note and therefore unless deficit stamp duty and penalty are paid the same cannot be received in evidence. The said objection was upheld by the Court below and under the impugned order dated 14-3-2006 the plaintiff was directed to pay requisite stamp duty and penalty. The said order is questioned by the plaintiff in this revision petition contending Inter alia that the conclusion of the Court below that the document dated 19-5-2003 is a Bond is erroneous.