THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No.1791 of 2012
20.09.2012
Nareddi Mohan Reddy
Siripuram Mallaiah
^Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri K.Ramesh Kumar For Sri S.R.Sanku
!Counsel for the respondent: ---
<Gist:
>Head note:
?Cases referred:
ORDER:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 02.03.2012, in
I.A.No.1035 of 2011 in O.S.No.51 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal
District Judge, Karimnagar.
I have heard Sri K.Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri S.R.Sanku,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
None appeared for the respondent, at the hearing.
The petitioner is the defendant in the above-mentioned suit filed by the
respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,38,500/- along with future interest.
During evidence, the respondent sought to mark the document, dated 25.07.2007,
stated to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. The
petitioner filed I.A.No.1035 of 2011 to determine the true nature of the
document in question and not to admit the same till the same is properly stamped
and impounded.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that the document in question is either
a partnership deed or a surety bond and that in either case, it is not
admissible in evidence for the reason that if it is a partnership deed, the same
is not signed by the petitioner and if it is a security bond, it is not
sufficiently stamped. The respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is
pleaded that the document in question is only an agreement or in alternative, it
can be considered as only a loan receipt. The Court below accepted the plea of
the respondent and held that the document in question can be considered as an
agreement and not as a bond, which does not require deficit stamp duty.
In order to resolve the controversy, it is necessary to re-produce the true
translation of the document in question which is as under:
"Today i.e., 25.07.2007, I am executing the following deed of acceptance. For
the purpose of construction of an apartment building in Kompally (Hyd), I have
borrowed a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. I am hereby executing this deed agreeing to
share profits on 50-50 basis after deducting the amount towards interest at the
rate of Rs.1.50. I have truly executed this document."
The above extracted recitals would clearly show that the petitioner has not only
acknowledged his borrowing the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent but
also undertook through the deed to share the profits after paying interest at
the rate of Rs.1.50. This document is shown to be attested by three witnesses.
On a careful consideration of the document in its entirety,
I am of the opinion that the same cannot be treated as a mere agreement and it
falls under the definition of bond in Section 2(5)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (for short 'the Act') which reads as under:
"Section 2(5) "Bond": "Bond" includes -
(a) ....
(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
(c) ...."
As the petitioner allegedly obliged to pay money to the respondent, the
instrument clearly falls under the definition of bond. The lower Court has,
therefore, committed a serious jurisdictional error in totally misconstruing the
instrument as an agreement not requiring additional stamp duty.
For the above-mentioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside and the
lower Court is directed to treat the document in question as bond and take
appropriate steps in accordance with the provisions of the Act, if it is found
that the same is not sufficiently stamped.
The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed.
As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.2395 of
2012 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
20th September, 2012
