SAUDAMINI DEI @ HAZARI Vs. BISHNU CHARAN JENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiff 's case was that Defendant who had 8 annas interest in Truck No. O.R.U. 983 had decided to purchase the other 8 annas interest from his share holder so as to become full owner in respect of the vehicle. The Defendant approached the Plaintiff through her husband, who was known to him, for an amount of Rs. 7,000/ - to purchase the 8 annas interest in the Truck from his share holder. On 13 -11 -1968 the Defendant executed a document in favour of the Plaintiff. This document was produced by the Plaintiff. When she wanted that it should be marked as an exhibit, objection was taken that it was a bond and it is to be impounded and unless stamp duties are paid the document cannot be marked as an exhibit. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted this objection and held that the -document was a bond and he did not mark it as an exhibit. It is against this order that the Civil Revision has been filed.

(2.) THE substance of the recitals in the bond is that the executant borrowed Rs. 7,000/ - to purchase the 8 annas interest in the Truck. Two modes of repayment were prescribed in the document. The first was that repayment would be made by transferring 6 annas interest in the Truck or it would be made in cash with damages.

(3.) IT would appear from the aforesaid definition that there are three Clauses - (a), (b) and (c). Mr. Harichandan contended that conditions in all the three clauses are to be fulfilled before a document is said to be a bond. The contention is not borne out by the language of the definition. All the three clauses must be disjunctively taken and if any document comes within the mischief of anyone of the clauses it would be a bond.