KASHABOINA BALA RAM Vs. GOPAGANI BUCHI RAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No. 24 of 1967 claimed a certain amount of money as due from the defendant and filed along with the plaint a document which he claimed to be receipt for a certain amount which he had lent to the defendant.

(2.) The learned Distiict Munsiff took the suit on file as O.S. No. 24 of 1967. He passed an order declaring that the document was a bond and on that basis directed recovery of stamp duty of Rs. 12 and penalty of Rs. 120. The learned Distrit Munsif held that this was a bond for the reason given by him as follows : " A receipt is only an acknowledgment of money, etc., which do not contain any other matter except the amount and also there should be no attestation in a receipt. When a receipt contains attestation of witnesses and specific nature of the amount so received, it will come under the definition of bond as defined by section 2 (5) sub-claause (b) of the Indian Stamp Act. It so happened in this case that the document contains the nature of acknowledgment as towards loan and it is also attested by wtincsses."

(3.) The document does not contain any express statement by which the executant obliged himself to pay money to the plaintiff. Simply because the. document mentions that the money received was towards loan, the learned district Munsiff inferred that it implied an obligation by the executant to paymoney to the plaintiff.