Document whether Bond or promissory note.

1. Whether the document in question is a promissory note or a bond within the meaning of section 2(5)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act?

2. If the document is a bond, it not having been produced within one year from the date of its execution as required by section 41 of the Stamp Act, whether the Collector has jurisdiction to proceed under sections 41 and 42 of the Stamp Act and issue a certificate.

The document in question, dated 14th June, 1947, runs as follows:

“Promissory note executed on 14th June, 1947, in favour of Arunachala Chettiar, son of Kollakara Chettiar, residing at Palappudi village, hamlet of Satyamangalam, Gingi taluk, bye Kuppuswami Chettiar, son of Venkatachala Chettiar, residing at the aforesaid village. In respect of the sum received from you at Tiruvannamalai by me in the year 1943 and given for opening a javuli shop by T. Arunachala Aiyar the sum found due to you is Rs.3000. As this sum of Rupees three thousand had to be paid to you, I shall pay the same together with interest at Rs.0-4-0 per month per Rs.100 in six equal instalments, and discharge the same.

"To this effect is the promissory note executed by me with my consent.

V. Kuppuswami Chettiar."

The document is attested by one witness and bears six one-anna revenue stamps.

The first question turns on the application of the definitions of ‘promissory note’ and ‘bond’ under section 2(22) and (5) of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 2(22) says:

“Promissory note means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881).”

Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines a promissory note thus:

“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.“

The learned Government Pleader adverted to the omission in the document of the expression” to the order of“. We do not think that mere omission of any such expression would render the document any the less a promissory note, if otherwise it fulfilled the terms of the definition. Actually a promissory note need not contain this expression. It is sufficient if there is an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. On a reading of the document it is clear that there is an undertaking to pay to a certain person.

We, however, are of opinion that the document in question is not a promissory note, because there is no unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money. The document provides that the sum of Rs.3000 had to be paid together with interest at 4 annas per month per Rs.100 in six equal instalments. There is no mention or indication of the date on which the instalments fall due. The result is that on any given date it is impossible to say that a certain sum of money is payable. The document does not even specify when the first instalment falls due. We therefore hold that the document in question is not a promissory note as defined in section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and, therefore, not a promissory note within the meaning of section 2(22) of the Indian Stamp Act. We are further of opinion that the document in question clearly falls within the definition of ‘bond’ in section 2(5)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, namely, an instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another. The instrument is attested by a witness. It is not payable to order or bearer and by the instrument a person has obliged himself to pay money to another. The Board of Revenue took the same view, namely, that the instrument was a bond.

For a disposal of the second question it is necessary to state a few facts. Arunachala Chettiar in whose favour the document was executed prod