SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1967 Supreme(Gau) 15

Manipur High Court
C. JAGANNADHACHARYULU, J.
Aribam Keshorjit Sarma
Versus
Konjengbam Amu Singh
Civil Revn. Case No.12 of 1966
Decided On : 23-02-1967

Advocates:
T. N. Bhattacharjee, for Petitioner; R. K. Dorendra Singh, for Respondent.

An unregistered but validly stamped mortgage bond can be admitted as evidence of the personal covenant contained therein to repay the debt.

Headnote:

STAMP ACT - PROMISSORY NOTE - MORTGAGE BOND - DISTINCTION - SUFFICIENCY OF STAMP DUTY - PROCEDURE FOR COLLECTION OF DEFICIT STAMP DUTY AND PENALTY - SECTIONS 35, 42, 49 OF THE INDIAN STAMP ACT, 1899.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a suit to recover a sum of money on the basis of a document executed by the respondent. The lower court held that the document was a mortgage bond and not a promissory note, and that it was not properly stamped. The petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the lower court's order.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the document in question was a simple mortgage bond and not a promissory note. The court further held that the lower court was correct in calling upon the petitioner to deposit the deficit stamp duty and penalty, and that the document could be admitted as evidence of the personal covenant contained therein to repay the debt.

Issues: 1. Whether the document in question was a promissory note or a mortgage bond? 2. Whether the lower court was correct in calling upon the petitioner to deposit the deficit stamp duty and penalty? 3. Whether the document could be admitted as evidence of the personal covenant contained therein to repay the debt?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the document in question was a mortgage bond and not a promissory note, based on the following factors: - The document showed that the respondent mortgaged his land to the petitioner as security for the loan. - The respondent undertook to make good his title to the property, if any dispute was raised by anyone regarding the property. - The intention of the parties was to treat the document as a simple mortgage bond, as evidenced by the plaint and the prayer portion of it. 2. The court held that the lower court was correct in calling upon the petitioner to deposit the deficit stamp duty and penalty, based on Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. 3. The court held that the document could be admitted as evidence of the personal covenant contained therein to repay the debt, based on Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with the observation that the parties should bear their respective costs.

ORDER

This is a revision petition filed by the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 13 of 1965 on the file of the Court of the Munsiff, Imphal, under Ss. 115 and 151, Civil P. C. to set aside his order dated 13-4-1966 passed in the suit.

2. The petitioner filed Money Suit No. 13 of 1965 on the file of the lower Court to recover a sum of Rs. 615 with further interest from the date of the plaint till realisation of the amount due on a document, executed in favour of the petitioner on 9-5-1962. The petitioner also prayed for a decree for the sale of the respondents land covered by patta 81/38 Imphal Pana in Taobungkhok Basti by enforcing the charge on the same created by the document.

3. The Munsif passed an order on 3-3-1966 that the document in question is a mortgage bond and not a promissory note, that it was not properly stamped, that it is inadmissible in evidence U/S. 35 of the Indian Stamp Act - Act II of 1899 (as applied to Manipur State) and "that the petitioner should take further steps under the Stamp Act if he wished to get it admitted in evidence."

4. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a petition on 22-3-1966 stating that the document in question is a promissory note for the purpose of the Indian Stamp Act, that even an unregistered mortgaged bond is admissible in evidence to support a claim for a money decree, that the lower Court should have collected the deficit stamp duty and penalty and admit the document in evidence and that, without prejudice to his contentions, the lower Court should impound the document after collecting the deficit stamp duty and penalty and admit the same in evidence of the petitioners claim for money. Then, the lower Court passed the order in question on 13-4-1966 holding that deficit stamp duty of Rs. 3.45 P. (Rs. 3.75 P. minus 30 P. already paid) is payable under Art. 40 (b) of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, that he should further pay Rs. 34.50 P. towards penalty being 10 times the deficit stamp duty and that, after the petitioner deposited the same, the document should be impounded and sent to the District Collector for his endorsement and return.

5. The petitioners counsel challenged the above orders of the lower Court on several grounds. His first contention is that the document in question is a promissory note, that it was validly stamped with. 30 P. revenue labels and that the document is admissible in evidence. The document in question was written in Manipur language. Its English translation (as done by the petitioners counsel) is as follows :-

" Sd/- Sri Amu Singh Konjengbam.

Lender Shri Aribam Keshorjit Sarma, Uripok Laikhurembi Leikai. I Shri Kongjengbam Amu Singh of Khagempali Huidrom Leikai have borrowed a sum of Rs. 300/- from Mahajan, mortgaging a paddy land U/Patta 81/38 Imphal Pana, Taobungkhok Basti. The amount will be repaid within a period of 3 months with interest at the rate of Rs. 3% per mensem. I undertake all responsibilities in case of any claim from any quarter. Dated 9-5-62."

Thus, the document reads that the respondent borrowed a sum of Rs. 300/- from the petitioner mortgaging his land covered by patta 81/38 in Imphal Pana, that he agreed to repay the loan with interest @ 3% per mensem within Appellant period of 3 months and that the respondent undertook to make good his title to the property, if any one raised dispute about it.

6. The question is whether this document is a promissory note within the meaning of Section 4 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act or Section 2 (22) of the Indian Stamp Act as contended by the petitioners counsel. Section 4 of the Indian Negotiable Instruments Act runs as follows :

A promissory note is an instrument in writing (not being a bank-note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker, to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument.

6-A. Section 2 (22) of the Indian Stamp Act runs as follows :-

" Promissory note means a promissory note as def





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top