The definition of a bond under the Indian Stamp Act and its distinction from an agreement, focusing on the liability to pay specific sums.

1. The question involved in this writ petition whether the document filed by the respondent / plaintiff styled as 'Ikramama' dated 09.02.2015 is a bond as defined under S.2(5) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1899') or it is an agreement under S.2(e) of the Contract Act , 1872 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1872').

2. The respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner / defendant along with agreement dated 09.02.2015, in which the petitioner / defendant filed an application under S.35 of the Act of 1899 that the document i.e. agreement is not duly stamped as it is falling within the meaning of S.2(5) of the Act of 1899, therefore, it is not admissible in evidence and it will not be adjudicated, which was opposed by the respondent / plaintiff by filing objection as it is said to be an agreement.

3. By the order impugned, the trial Court has held that it is an agreement duly stamped and duly executed and rejected the application filed by the petitioner / defendant.

4. Feeling dissatisfied with said order, this writ petition under Art.227 of the Constitution of India has been filed.

5. Mr. B. M. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, referring the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Shantilal v. Vijay Kumar , 2009 (4) MPHT 489 would submit that the trial Court has wrongly construed the instrument as an agreement and failed to direct the respondent / plaintiff to pay adequate stamp duty before accepting the document, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

6. Mr. A.S.Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the document is an agreement within the meaning of S.2(e) of the Act of 1872 and therefore, the trial Court has absolutely justified in holding that it to be agreement and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard leaned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein and also gone through the documents appended with the petition with utmost circumspection.

8. The definition of bond given in S.2(5)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act , 1899 read as under:
'Bond' includes:
(a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be;
(b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and
(c) any instrument so attested whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another.

9. The definition of bond is inclusive definition and the bond as defined in S.2(5)(b) is to be given the widest meaning. An instrument which satisfies the conditions mentioned in the above section is included within definition of bond. The necessary requisites of bond are that the instrument should be signed, attested by witness, not payable to order or bearer and by the instrument a person should oblige himself to pay money to another or to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another.
The Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Santsingh Ladharam v. Madandas Gyandas Panika and Anr., 1976 MPLJ (FB) 238 : AIR 1976 MP (FB), has noted the essentials of the bond as under
'5........The essentials of a bond are:
(1) There must be an undertaking to pay;
(2) The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain;
(3) The payment will be to another person named in the instrument;
(4) The maker should sign it;
(5) The instrument must be attested