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.
The document in question ran thus: -
"Date of maturity: - Maegar Sudi 1 Samvat 2012. Salutation to Bhai Sobhagmalji Kesrimalji, I have received Rs. 5,000 (in words rupees five thousands) taken by me for one month oa Katik Sudi 1 Samvat 2012. Written on Miti Katik Sudi 1 Samvat 2012.
(One anna stamp)
Ramniwas Murlidhar
Sd. Ratanlal.
2. Having regard to the terms of this document which is not attested it has to be seen whether the Court below was justified in construing it to be a bond. The term bond is defined under section 2 (5) of the Indian Stamp Act: -
"'Bond' includes: -
(a) Any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;
(b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and
(e) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produces to another."
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 (e) 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, A I R 1938 P. C. 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 Sigh Court in the case reported in Samirmal v. Gendalal, AIR 1955 M. B. 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 P. C. 171 and Karam Ghand v. Firm Mian Mir Ahmad, A I R 1938 P. C. 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. 343-12-0. 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.
3. I would therefore hold that the present case can properly fall under clause (c) of section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and the order of the Court below deserves to be interfered with.
4. The petition is therefore allowed and the order of the Court below holding the document to be a bond and requiring the plaintiff to pay Rs. 343-12-0 as duty and penalty is set aside and it is held that the document is a receipt.
5. The petitioner is entitled to his costs of this petition from the opposite party.
6. The trial Court shall deal with the case in view of the opinion expressed above as regards the nature of the document and dispose of the case according to law.
Revision petition allowed.