Kainikkara Abdurahiman vs Aalukkal Yunus

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Ker) 1210

V. G. ARUN
Kainikkara Abdurahiman – Appellant
Versus
Aalukkal Yunus – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: R.T. Pradeep, M. Bindudas.
For the Respondents: Jamsheed Hafiz, T.S. Sreekutty.

JUDGMENT :

V.G. ARUN, J.

1. The short question arising for consideration in this original petition is whether Ext.P1 is a bond or an agreement.

2. The petitioner filed O.S. No. 183 of 2013 before the Sub Court, Tirur for realisation of an amount of Rs. 11,20,000/- from the respondent, based on Ext.P1 document and a cheque dated 20.03.2013. In his written statement, the defendant/respondent contended that Ext.P1 is a bond and being insufficiently stamped, the document is liable to be impounded. Before commencement of trial, the court below considered the question as to the nature of the document. The petitioner contended that Ext.P1 is an agreement in terms of Article 5(C) of the Schedule attached to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959 and hence, the stamp duty payable is only Rs. 50. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the document is a bond as defined under Section 2(a) of the Kerala Stamp Act. By Ext.P4 order, the document is held to be a bond. Hence, the original petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner referred to Ext.P1 and contended that the terms and the wordings in Ext.P1 clearly reveals that it is intended to be an agreement. It is submitted that the parties themse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document