Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 245
AIR 2011 MP 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
R.S. Garg and U.C. Maheshwari, JJ.
Ikbal Ahmed – Appellant
Vs.
Girdharilal – Respondent
W.P. No. 282 of 2010
Decided On: 18.03.2010
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definitions of 'bond' and 'receipt' under the Indian Stamps Act and their application to determine the admissibility of a document as evidence.
Headnote:
Indian Stamps Act - Bond vs. Receipt - The court held that the document in question did not meet the criteria to be considered a bond as per Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamps Act, but it did fulfill the conditions to be classified as a receipt under Section 2(23). The court concluded that the document was a receipt and not a bond, and therefore admissible in evidence despite being on proper stamp.
Fact of the Case:
The Defendant challenged the trial court's decision that the document in question was a receipt and not a bond, arguing that it was a bond and not admissible in evidence due to improper stamping.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the definitions of 'bond' and 'receipt' under the Indian Stamps Act and concluded that the document in question met the criteria to be classified as a receipt, acknowledging the receipt of money and observing to repay the amount. The court found the trial court's decision justified and dismissed the petition, ordering the return of the deposited amount to the Defendant.
Issues: Interpretation of the definitions of 'bond' and 'receipt' under the Indian Stamps Act, admissibility of the document in question as evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The document did not meet the criteria to be considered a bond as per Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamps Act, but fulfilled the conditions to be classified as a receipt under Section 2(23), leading to its admissibility as evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and ordered the return of the deposited amount to the Defendant.
1. Heard.
The Petitioner/Defendant, being aggrieved by the order dated 21-12-2009 passed by the learned trial Court holding that the document in question is not a bond but is a receipt and is on proper stamp, has come to this Court with a submission that the document in question is a bond and is not admissible in evidence because it is not properly stamped.
2. Section 2(5) of the Indian Stamps Act defines a "bond" while Section 2(23) defines "receipt". All the three clauses of Section 2(5) defining a bond do not cover the document in dispute. The document does no where say that on happening of any event or on non-happening of any event, the liability would become zero. The document is not attested by any person and, similarly, the document no where says that the executant of the document bind himself for and on behalf of any other person. If the three conditions to make a document a bond are not available then the document cannot be termed to be a bond.
3. Section 2(23) when defines receipt, it clearly says that if a person acknowledges receipt of the money and executes a document then such document would be a receipt. In the present matter, the language of the document would clearly show that the Defendant was acknowledging receipt of a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- and was also observing to repay the said amount. Once the Defendant in the document has acknowledged the receipt of the money then the document would come within the definition of the receipt. In our opinion, the learned Court below was not unjustified in overruling the objection raised by the Defendant. The petition is dismissed.
4. The amount deposited with the trial Court at the instance of the Defendant be return back to the Defendant.
