The contents of a document determine its nature as a promissory note; an under-stamped instrument cannot be admitted in evidence without necessary stamp duty and penalty.

ORDER :

G.RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-defendant aggrieved by the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in O.S No.22 of 2021 by the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet, holding the document dated 16.02.2018 as promissory note and marking it as Ex.A4 during the chief examination of PW.1.

2. The facts of the case in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.20,30,000/- alleged to be due under a pro-note. The plaintiff contended that she was a senior citizen of 73 years of age. The defendant was doing Real Estate business and as a part of his business, he approached the plaintiff and purchased the lands from the plaintiff at Reddygudem village for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. He paid part of the amount and stated that he would pay the balance amount of Rs.14,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum on demand and convinced her that it would be useful for the plaintiff, as she was at her advanced age. The plaintiff agreed for the same and the terms of the agreement were reduced into writing on a non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.20/- on 16.02.2018. The defendant signed on the said agreement in the presence of witnesses and agreed to repay the amount with interest as and when demanded.

3. The contention of the plaintiff was that the defendant paid interest till the month of December, 2018 as agreed and thereafter failed to pay the same, as such, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 12.04.2021 demanding the defendant to discharge the entire debt. The defendant gave a reply on 04.05.2021 demanding to supply the photocopy of the pro-note. Accordingly, the plaintiff furnished the copy of the pro- note on 26.05.2021, but as the defendant failed to respond to the same nor paid any amount, filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.20,30,000/-, on the principal amount of Rs.14,00,000/- by calculating interest @ 18% per annum from January, 2019 to July, 2021 to an amount of Rs.6,30,000/-.

4. The defendant filed written statement denying purchase of the land from the plaintiff and also the execution of the document as stated by the plaintiff. He denied that the signature on the document belonged to him. He also further contended that the suit was barred by limitation. 5. The trial court on framing the issues, had taken the matter for trial.

6. The plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit and got filed the alleged agreement dated 16.02.2018 to mark the same as an exhibit. The defendant took an objection for marking the said document contending that it was a bond, but not a promissory note and that necessary stamp duty was not paid upon it.

7. The trial court, on hearing both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the citations relied by both the parties, considered the document as a promissory note and marked the same as Ex.A4.

8. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial court in holding the document as a promissory note, the defendant preferred this revision.

9. Heard Sri K. Sai Teja the learned counsel representing Sri P. Ananth Aathreya, learned counsel on record for the revision petitioner and Sri Ch. Srinivasulu, learned counsel for the respondent. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the document dated 16.02.2018 was primarily acknowledging due amount under a real estate transaction. The said document dated 16.02.2018 was not a promissory note as alleged and found by the trial court but an acknowledgment of debt with a condition to pay with interest as and when demanded. Merely because there was the word ‘demand’ in the document, it could not