Faqeer Bux and Others vs Smt. Asmat Ara Begum and Another

N.K. Mehrotra, J.—This is a revision u/s 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act against the judgment and order dated 22.8.1983, passed by the Xth Additional District Judge, Sitapur, dismissing the objection of the revisionists against the admissibility of the two document Nos. 22 Ka-1 and 22 Ka-2.

I have heard the learned counsel for the revisionists and have gone through the record.

A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that the plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 22,000 as a loss sustained to them. During the evidence, the plaintiff tried to prove two paper Nos. 22 Ka-1 and 22 Ka-2. The defendant raised objection of the admissibility of these two documents on the ground that they were not sufficiently stamped.

According to the plaintiffs, these documents were only the memorandum of agreement. While according to the defendants, these documents were bonds. The learned trial court after hearing both the parties held that the documents in question were not the bonds but these two documents were only memorandum of agreement.

Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Stamp Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh, the bond is defined as follows :

"(5) Bond.-- "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

(c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another."

A perusal of the document goes to show that this document is not signed by the person on whose behalf some promise was made. Further, 1 find that these documents were not attested by any witness, so strictly these two documents are not covered under the definition of Bond but as held by the learned trial court, these documents are in the shape of memorandum of the agreement containing the terms agreed between the parties, therefore, the revision has no force and is liable to be dismissed.

The revision is dismissed.