Ikbal Ahmed vs Girdharilal

Heard.

The Petitioner/Defendant, being aggrieved by the order dated 21-12-2009 passed by the learned trial Court holding that the document in question is not a bond but is a receipt and is on proper stamp, has come to this Court with a submission that the document in question is a bond and is not admissible in evidence because it is not properly stamped.

Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamps Act defines a "bond" while Section 2(23) defines "receipt". All the three clauses of Section 2(5) defining a bond do not cover the document in dispute. The document does no where say that on happening of any event or on non-happening of any event, the liability would become zero. The document is not attested by any person and, similarly, the document no where says that the executant of the document bind himself for and on behalf of any other person. If the three conditions to make a document a bond are not available then the document cannot be termed to be a bond.

Section 2(23) when defines receipt, it clearly says that if a person acknowledges receipt of the money and executes a document then such document would be a receipt. In the present matter, the language of the document would clearly show that the Defendant was acknowledging receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and was also observing to repay the said amount. Once the Defendant in the document has acknowledged the receipt of the money then the document would come within the definition of the receipt. In our opinion, the learned Court below was not unjustified in overruling the objection raised by the Defendant. The petition is dismissed.

The amount deposited with the trial Court at the instance of the Defendant be return back to the Defendant.