M. Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

A document styled as an agreement, where under the executant undertakes to repay the amount borrowed earlier with interest within the period provided under the document, is a bond or an agreement, is the question to be decided in this petition. Relying on a decision of this court in Gopakumar v. Easwar Pillai (2006 (1) ILR Ker. 140), learned Munsiff held that the document is a bond and therefore it is insufficiently stamped and impounded the document. It is challenged in this petition filed under Art.227 of Constitution of India.

2. The document is styled as an agreement executed by respondent in favour of petitioner. The recitals in the document show that respondent had borrowed Rs.80,000/-from petitioner earlier to enable him to go to outside India. Under the agreement, respondent agreed to repay the same with interest at 12% within one year from the date of execution of the agreement. It also provides that on the failure to repay, petitioner is entitled to realise the same personally as well as against the property of respondent. Learned Munsiff held that the document creates an obligation. Following the decision in Gopakumar’s case it was hel