GOVIND SAHAI Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole question for determination in this revision is whether the document dated January 28, 1980 on the basis of which the respondents filed Civil Suit No. 43/83 in the Court of Civil Judge, Udaipur was not sufficiently stamped and could not form the basis of the suit.

(2.) THE document in question has been alleged to have been executed by the petitioner as proprietor of the firm M/s. Govind Sahai and Saujay Kumar. It appears that the past accounts had been gone into and an amount of Rs. 5220/- was found due in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. THE petitioner agreed to pay this amount alongwith interest at 1% per month after January, 1982 on demand. THE Civil Judge, Jaipur City decided this question under issue No. 4 framed by him. He referred to the decision in Hanuman Vs. Fattu (1) of this Court and held that the document should not be held to be a promissory note and that it was an agreement which required stamp of R. s. 2/-Since the document was insufficiently stamped, he directed that the plaintiff should pay an amount of Rs. 22/- as penalty.

(3.) AS already stated, the document in the present suit is exactly on the lines as was in Muthu Gounder's case and not in Hanuman's case, the document in question is not a promissory note. It has already been stated above that the expression "on demand" in a promissory note has a technical meaning viz. , payable immediately or forthwith. In the present case, an unconditional promise to pay has been made into a conditional one by making the amount payable after January, 1982 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the words 'on demand' contained in the document has a technical meaning of being payable immediately, as it is conditional upon not being payable upto January, 1982. Further the demand contemplated has to be made after January, 1982. The making of a demand is, therefore, a condition precedent to the payment and, therefore, there is no conditional promise to pay, in the document. The Civil Judge was, therefore, right in holding that the document was not a promissory note and was an agreement and further that it was admissible in evidence on payment of the penalty amount.