The court established that a document can meet promissory note criteria but still be classified as a bond if not payable to order or bearer, under the Stamp Act.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Osmanabad, in Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1968, arising out of the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Osmanabad, in Civil Suit No. 52/1 of 1955.

2. The predecessor of the respondents one Hirachand Amichand filed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 5250/- O. S. on the basis of a pro - note dated 6th December 1952 alleged to have been executed by one Shivlal Raoji, the predecessor of the present appellants. The original defendant contested the claim denying both the execution and consideration of the pro - note. He also contended that the so - called pro - note was a money bond and the same being not duly stamped, it was inadmissible in evidence. The plaintiff filed his rejoinder refuting the contentions raised by the defendant and giving the history and the details of the consideration. The rest of the contentions are not material for our purpose. The learned trial Judge, on the evidence placed before him by the parties on both the sides, came to the conclusion that there was no, consideration for the pronote, and that the so - called pro - note being a money bond not duly stamped, it was inadmissible in evidence. He, therefore, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with no order as to costs. The plaintiff then went in appeal to the District Court. The learned District Judge found that the document on the basis of which the plaintiff sought to recover the money was a pro - note and not a money bond, and that the plaintiff had proved both execution and consideration for the same. He, therefore, passed a decree for Rupees 4,500/- with costs of the suit and future interest at 4 per cent. per annum. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the heirs and legal representatives of the original defendant have come in second appeal to this Court.

3. The learned Counsel Mr. Sathe, appearing on behalf of the appellants, first wanted to challenge the finding recorded by the learned District Judge on the question of execution and consideration by taking me through the evidence. However, both the findings being findings of facts based on evidence, and the learned Counsel not being able to urge any question of law on the strength of which these findings of facts could be disturbed, I have no alternative but to accept them and hold that the appellants cannot challenge these findings of facts in second appeal.

4. The important question, however, that is agitated before me in this appeal is whether the document, Ex. 1, on the strength of which the respondents filed the suit for the recovery of money, is a pro - note or a money bond. The agreed translation of the document, which is originally in Urdu, reads thus : -
"I, Shivalal s/o Raoji Shah, r/o Tuljapur, write this promissory note in favour of you Hirachand s/o Amichand, r/o Osmanabad, for Rs. 4,500/- I. G. rupees four thousand five hundred I. G. only being the agreed amount of an earlier promissory note, which is without interest and which I promise to pay to you on demand. Further there is a separate promissory note for Rs. 3,300/- rupees three thousand and three hundred only, which has no connection with the sura of Rs. 4,500/- I. G. for which this promissory is given. Miti Marghashirsh Vadya 5, Shake 1874, Date 6-12-1952, in own handwriting.
Sd/- Shivlal Raoji Shah,
Witnesses. In own handwriting,
Rangnath Krishnath Kakade,
Shankar Sambha Nayagaonkar,
Amirkhan Azamkhan,
Sadashiv Madhav Mane".
Now, the learned Counsel Mr. Sathe has urged that the document being attested by witnesses and not being payable to order or bearer, is a bond within the meaning of that word defined in S.2(5)