The main legal point established in the judgment is that a declaration, by itself, may not constitute an agreement and may not require stamping as such under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.

1. The only evidence to which our attention has been invited as to the course of business of the Bank is the statement contained in the letter of the Secretary to the Board of Revenue. In that letter, the course of business is thus described: The bank grants loans on promissory notes payable on demand or otherwise. Before advancing money, it requires the borrower to make a declaration in the confidential register in the form thereto annexed and to sign it." A translation of the form to which the Secretary refers is annexed to the letter. Beading the entries in the register by the light of the statement by the Secretary as to the course of business, I am unable to say that the entries in the register show that the signing of the declaration, the execution of the note, and the advance of money by the bank were one and the same transaction. I express no opinion as to whether, if it appeared on the face of the entries that the signing of the declaration, the execution of the note and the advance of the money were one and the same transaction, the entries would require to be stamped as an agreement or a memorandum of an agreement.

2. For the purposes of the question we have to consider, I am quite prepared to accept the proposition that, if the document in question is evidence of an agreement, I do not say of an agreement and the terms thereof, but if the document is evidence of an agreement-evidence that the minds of the parties when the document was signed were ad idem with regard to the particular matter-in that case the document would require to be stamped. Now can we infer from the statement as to the course of the business and the entries in the register that, when the declaration was signed, the minds of the parties were ad idem with regard to the matter in question? It has to be observed that, according to the course of business as stated by the Secretary, before the money is advanced the borrower is required to make a declaration. The Government Pleader has suggested that implies that, if the declaration has been made, the Bank will, as a matter of course, make the advance. I do not think that implication necessarily arises.

3. Now can it be said that there is evidence of an agreement which imposes an obligation of any kind on the bank? I think not. I do not think it can be said, reading these entries, that, on the making of the declaration by the borrower, the Bank were under any obligation, forthwith or within a reasonable time thereafter, to advance money. What is it on which the suggestion is based that we can read in these entries an agreement imposing an obligation on the Bank? The Government Pleader concedes that the only words in the register are the words "Hundi No. 179." We have looked into the original register, and we find that it is arranged in a tabular form. The first column is headed "Hundi No.". The second column is headed "Date." The first entry in the first column is "179," that is, there is a reference to a hundi of which the number is 179. Then as regards the date in the original register, the year and month are not given, but the day of the month which is stated appears to be the date on which the declaration was signed. Whether that is intended to be the date of the hundi or whether it is intended to be the date of the making of the declaration, is not clear in the original register. Now, we are invited, on the strength of this reference to a hundi (amount unspecified), to refer an agreement by the Bank to make an advance on the signing of the declaration and to infer the fact that an advance was made. I do not think that, on such evidence, we should be warranted in making that inference,-at any rate, for the purpose of deciding whether, under a fiscal enactment, this particular document is one which is required to be stamped. Then can it be said that there is an agreement which imposes any obligation on the borrower? It had been suggested that it is an undertakin