SOBHAGMAL KESHARIMAL MAHAJAN Vs. RAMNIVAS MURLIDHAR MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against an order holding that the document sued upon is liable to stamp duty under Article 15 of the Stamp Act as a bond and requiring the plaintiff to pay the duty and penalty amounting to Rs. 343 -12 -0.

(2.) THE document in question ran thus: -

(3.) IT is clear that the present document cannot fall under clause (a) as it is not subject to any condition that it would be void if a specified act is performed or not performed. The document being unattested it would not fall under clause (b) or (c) and is, therefore, evidently not a bond. In terms it appears to be a receipt although it mentions a date by which the repayment would be made. There is no express agreement to pay. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Karam Chand v. Firm Mian Mir Ahmad AIR 1938 PC 121, had occasion to consider a similar document and it was held to be a receipt. The document in the identical form had come up for consideration before myself and Samvatsar J., as the Judges of the Madhya Bharat High Court in the case reported in Samirmal v. Gendalal AIR 1955 MB 81, and it was held by us, relying upon the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council, that the document is a receipt. There is nothing in the operative part of the document to suggest that the writer had made an express promise to pay the amount although an implied promise to pay can be inferred by reference to the date of maturity mentioned. That would not amount to even an agreement much less a bond. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Mohammad Akbar Khan v. Attar Singh AIR 1936 PC 171 and Karam Chand v. Firm Mian Mir Ahmad AIR 1938 PC 121, treated a document such as this as substantially a receipt. The Court below was therefore, not right in treating it as a bond and requiring the plaintiff to pay duty and penalty amounting to Rs 313 -12 -0. The order of the Court below amounted to refusal to exercise jurisdiction to admit the document and to act upon it in case the plaintiff failed to pay the duty and penalty. This action on the part of the lower Court is clearly illegal. The document in any case cannot be a bond.