THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5227 OF 2011 Dated:15.12.2011 Between: Mutyala Veerabhadra Rao .. Petitioner And Nallala Prasada Rao .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5227 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant. In the suit filed by the respondent being O.S.No.140 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, for recovery of money, the respondent sought to mark a letter dated 08.05.2007 as Ex.A1. The petitioner objected the same contending that the said letter being a bond, cannot be received in evidence as it is not stamped properly. The objection was overruled by the Court below by an order dated 15.10.2011. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court heard the counsel for the petitioner and is not able to accept the submission made that the letter to be marked as an exhibit is a bond. The said letter reads as under. Letter executed by Mutyala Veerabhadra Rao @ Rajabbai to Nallala Prasada Rao, S/o.Narayana Murthy, R/o.Rayabhupalapatnam, Peddapuram Mandal. On settlement of transactions between us in respect of Sago Factory, I am due an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) to you towards your share. I will pay the said one lakh amount to you within three months from this day. Otherwise, I will pay the same with interest at Rs.2/- per month for hundred and I am executing this letter by agreeing to do so. The counsel would rely on the decision of the Full Bench in Bolisetti Bhavannarayana @ Venkata Bhavannarayana v Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, Tenali [1] wherein it was held as under. … It would, thus, appear that the said definition of the term “bond” is not exclusive, but inclusive. In other words, the definition is exhaustive and not restrictive. It does not say that any document not attested by witnesses would not be a bond, though an obligation is incurred by one to pay money to another. Accordingly when clause (b) of Section 2(5) of the Stamp Act mentions that “any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another” would be included within the meaning of “bond”, it does not mean that similar document without attestation by a witness would not be included, or excluded from the definition of “bond”. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the document in question is a bond, though not attested by a witness. … Applying the above ratio, this Court has examined the document sought to be marked by the respondent. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, it is only an acknowledgment of the amount arrived at a settlement and is not supported by any consideration and therefore it cannot be treated as a bond. Therefore, the findings recorded by the Court below are unassailable. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 15.12.2011 KH [1] 1996 (1) ALT 917 (F.B.)