Judges : RADHAKRISHNA MENON
STATE BANK Of TRAVANCORE - Appellant
Versus
THAYIKUTTY AMMA - Respondent
Case No : C.R.P. No. 1010 of 1982
Decided On : 06/23/1988
Advocates Appeared :
M. Pathrose Mathai; Siri Jagan; For Petitioner M.C. Cherian; For Respondent
Stamp Duty - Kerala Stamp Act - Interpretation of 'bond' - The court held that for an instrument to be considered a 'bond' under S.2(a)(ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act, the obligation to pay must be created for the first time under the document and must not be pre-existing. The court found that the instrument in question did not satisfy this condition as the executant had already undertaken the obligation to pay the loan amount through other documents, and therefore, the document could not be treated as a 'bond'. The court vacated the order under challenge and allowed the revision petition.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, as the revision petitioner, challenged an order that imposed a deficit stamp duty and penalty on a document, claiming it to be a 'bond' under the Kerala Stamp Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the instrument in question did not satisfy the conditions to be considered a 'bond' under the Kerala Stamp Act, as the obligation to pay was pre-existing and not created for the first time under the document. The court vacated the order and directed for the refund of the deficit stamp duty and penalty if already paid by the petitioner.
Issues: Interpretation of the term 'bond' under S.2(a)(ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act.
Ratio Decidendi: For an instrument to be considered a 'bond' under the Kerala Stamp Act, the obligation to pay must be created for the first time under the document and must not be pre-existing.
Final Decision: The court vacated the order under challenge and allowed the revision petition, with no costs imposed on the petitioner.
1. The plaintiff is the revision petitioner.
2. The order under challenge reads:
"This is a bond as defined in S.2 (a) (ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act, and proper stamp duty is Rs. 200/-. Stamp duty paid is only Rs. 5/-. So deficit stamp duty is Rs. 195/-. Penalty is Rs. 1950/-. Plaintiff will pay Rs. 195/- as deficit stamp duty and Rs. 1950/-and penalty".
3. S.2 (a) (ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act reads:22 Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-(a) "bond" includes-(i)
(ii) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; ".
4. To call an instrument a 'bond', it should satisfy all the following three conditions?
i. The instrument shall be attested by a witness,
ii. It shall not be payable to order or bearer.
iii. By the said document the person who has executed it shall oblige himself to pay money to another.
The instrument in question no doubt, is one attested by witnesses. It is also "not payable to order or bearer". If the third condition is also satisfied, the instrument will be a 'bond'. The question therefore is. does the instrument satisfy the condition also? To answer this question, we have to construe the expression, "any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another". From the context in which this expression is used it is clear that the obligation to pay must be created for the first time, under the document and must not be pre-existing. Having understood the law, let us see whether the executant of the instrument for the first time has obliged himself to pay the money to the plaintiff bank. That the obligation to pay the loan amount had already been undertaken by the executant of the document (as is seen from the other documents namely the guarantee document etc. executed by him) is beyond dispute. If that be the position, it cannot be said that the executant for the first time has created an obligation by this document to pay the loan amount. He, by executing this document, has only confirmed a pre-existing obligation. If that be so, the document cannot be treated as a 'bond' within the meaning of S.2(a)(ii) of the Kerala Stamp Act.
5. In the light of what is stated above, the order under challenge is liable to be vacated. I accordingly vacate the same. If the petitioner has already paid the deficit stamp duty and penalty, the same shall be refunded to the petitioner.
The C. R. P. is allowed. No costs.
Allowed.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.