The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the nature of a financial instrument based on the definitions and essential features of a promissory note and a bond under the relevant statutes.

K. K. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition is directed against an order dated 16-4-2008 by the additional District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 29-A/2007, by which the Court found that document in question was a promissory note, not an agreement for payment of remaining consideration of sale and was on a proper stamp duty. Holding it, the Trial Court found that the document can be received in evidence.

( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner submitted that in fact the document in question was a 'bond' and not a 'promissory note'. From the language of document it is apparent that a definite amount of money was promised to be paid to the plaintiff/respondent with a condition that only after payment of the amount the defendant shall be entitled for mutation in the revenue record. If the defendant effects mutation without such payment then the plaintiff would be entitled to object the mutation and for declaration of sale deed as void. The document was signed by both the parties and also attested by two witnesses, so it falls within the purview of "bond" as defined under Section 2 (5) of the Indian stamp Act, 1899. He has also placed reliance to a Full Bench judgment of this court in Sant Singh Vs. Madandas Panika and another, 1976 JLJ 235 and submitted that this writ petition be allowed, impugned order be set aside, the document in question be declared as bond, the Trial Court be directed to impound it and only after recovery of duty and penalty it be permitted to be received in evidence.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for plaintiff/respondent No. 1 opposed the contention and submitted that in fact the document in question is a "promissory note" by which the defendant agreed to pay unpaid consideration of sale deed to the plaintiff, though it was signed by the parties and attested by witnesses, but it does not fall within the purview of bond. In the alternative, it was argued by Shri pareek that it is an agreement for payment of unpaid consideration. He placed reliance to Full Bench judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Hamdard dawakhana (Wakf) Delhi C. Reference, AIR 1968 Delhi 1 and submitted that this writ petition be dismissed with costs.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the rival contention of the parties, it would be appropriate if the document in question is referred which reads thus :-From the perusal of aforesaid the following position emerges:-

(i) That plaintiff Phoola sold his land survey No. 2581/2 area 0. 98 hectares to the defendant. Out of total consideration, Rs. 20,000/-was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff at the time of execution of sale deed, which was paid to co-owner Guttu s/o Thochan chamar, who was co-executor of sale deed. Remaining amount Rs. 1,20,000/- was not available with defendant, so he had agreed to pay it within one year from the date of sale deed, i. e. , April, 2002.

(ii) It was also stipulated in the agreement that only after payment of entire amount to plaintiff the defendant would be entitled for mutation of his name and in case without payment of amount mutation proceedings were initiated then the plaintiff would be entitled to object it and to get sale deed declared as void. In that regard the cost of proceedings were to be paid by the defendant.

(iii) The document was signed by the defendant Bhismat Pandey, plaintiff Phoola (T. I.) and two witnesses, namely Shivkumar and lallu Chamar (T. I.)-

(iv) As the aforesaid amount was not paid, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration that sale deed dated 12-4-2001 be declared as void, possession of land be delivered to the plaintiff or in the alternative a decree in favour of plaintiff of unpaid consideration of Rs. 1,20,000/- alongwith 12% interest from 12-4-2001 be granted.

( 5 ) THE defendant/petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement, issues were framed. Before recording the evidence the petitioner objected to the document that it was not on appropriate stamp duty and was inadmissible in evidence. The Trial Court by the impugne