Can a copy of an insufficiently stamped instrument be impounded under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act or the deficit stamp duty and penalty be realised? Whether a provision in the instrument creating an obligation to pay money, but not a fixed sum, makes the instrument a bond as defined under section 2(a) (i) of Kerala Stamp Act? These are the interesting questions to be settled in this case.

2. Petitioners are husband and wife. They are the plaintiffs in O.S.156/1996 on the file of Sub Court, Palakkad. Respondent in the C.R.P are the defendants in that suit. First respondent in the C.R.P is the plaintiff in O.S.284/95 and O.S.543/1998 on the file of the same court. Petitioner filed O.S.156/1996 for realisation of Rs.5.2 Lakhs due under an agreement for sale dated 3.4.1995. First respondent filed O.S.284/1985 for realisation of the amount paid under the agreement contending that it was not actually an agreement for sale but a loan transaction. O.S.43/1998 was filed for return of the amount on basis of an agreement dated 5.4.1995. In O.S.156/1996, when Ext.P1 agreement dated 3.4.1995 was sought to be marked as an exhibit, it was contended by respondents that the instrument