JUDGMENT Devan Ramachandran, J.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P4 order of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, in OP No.1821/2019, whereby, a document produced by the respondent has been found to be properly stamped; and therefore, not necessary to be impounded.

2. Sri.T.K.Radhakrishnan - learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that, when the covenants of the document are as available in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, the learned Family Court could not have entered a finding that “the present document is not a bond and it is only and agreement.”(sic) He vehemently argued that when the document shows that the executant is the same, namely his client, who had bound himself to return the money and articles on demand to the person making such demand; it ought to have been construed only as a ‘bond’.

3. We notice from Ext.P4 that the learned Family Court has considered the afore contention in its right perspective; and its opinion is available in paragraph No.4 thereof, which is as under:

On going to the recitals in the document it can be seen that it cannot be a promissory note since it is not payable to bearer or holder, even though there is a promise to pay the money and gold orn