GAURI SHANKAR JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. BALDEO SAHUJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two questions which arise on this application are (1) whether a bond to be executed by the appellant in the circumstances to be presently stated, requires to be stamped under Article 57 or Article 40, Stamp Act, and (2) whether such a bond requires to be registered. The circumstances under which the bond falls to be executed are the following. The appellant had preferred an appeal to this Court from a decree passed against him for specific performance of a contract. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant applied for a stay of the execution of the decree passed against him, and the learned Registrar of this Court passed an order staying the execution of the decree on the appellant furnishing security to the extent of rupees one lac to the satisfaction of the Court below. Against that order of the learned Registrar, the respondent-decree-holder came up to the Bench; but the appeal of the respondent-decree-holder to the Bench against the order of the learned Registrar already stands dismissed, and nothing further need be said about it. It appears that on the last day of the time allowed for the furnishing of security aforesaid, the appellant offered a security bond with regard to some property in Patna City. The Court below held that the security offered from several defects, two of such defects being that the bond was not properly stamped nor registered. The Court below also referred to some other defects, such as insufficiency of the property offered in security as also the fact that the property was joint family property and that the other members of the joint family had not joined in the execution of the bond.

(2.) At present we are concerned with the two questions whether the bond offered by the appellant requires to be stamped under Article 40 or Article 57, Stamp Act, and the other question is whether it requires to be registered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has placed great reliance on Jayappa Lokappa v. Shivangouda Dyamangouda', AIR 1928 Bom 42 (A), 'Kasturi Lal v. Goverdhan Das', AIR 1934 Lah 138 (FB) (B) and 'In re, Reference by the District Registrar, Dadu', AIR 1936 Sind 41 (C). Learned counsel for the respondent-decree-holder has placed reliance on three Full Bench decisions, namely, 'Scamp Reference In re, AIR 1931 Ail 189 (FB)' (D), 'Akshay Zemindari Ltd. v. Rama Nath Barman', ILR (1937) 1 Cal 375 (E) and'Hunter v. Emperor', AIR 1942 Oudh 371 (SB) (F). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the view expressed in the three Full Bench decisions aforesaid is the correct view. The bond offered by the appellant must be stamped under Article 40, Stamp Act, and we are further of the opinion, following the reasoning given in 'A.S.P.S.S. Chettyar Firm v. Llyods Bank', AIR 1935 Rang 168 (G), that it must be registered. The application filed on behalf of the appellant with regard to these matters must be dismissed.