THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1855 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.148 of 2009 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel against the petitioner for recovery of a sum of Rs.51,170/- on the basis of a promissory note, dated 11.11.2003. The suit was opposed by the petitioner. He stated that as many as four promissory notes were executed by him in favour of the respondent, his mother and brothers, for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and though substantial amounts have been repaid, the same were not mentioned in the plaint. The trial of the suit commenced. The recording of evidence on behalf of the respondent was completed. The petitioner deposed as D.W.1 and he filed a document which contained the endorsement as to the principal amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as on 11.11.2003 and the interest that accrued up to 31.08.2008. In addition, the endorsement as to repayment of a sum of Rs.2,37,553/- was also made. He stated that the document was written by none other than the respondent. The trial Court refused to receive the document in evidence on the ground that it is not signed by anyone nor stamped in accordance with law and accordingly, passed a docket order, dated 08.03.2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri L.J.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent. The suit filed by the respondent was for recovery of amount. The petitioner did not dispute the execution of promissory note, but pleaded substantial discharge thereof. To prove his contention, the petitioner filed a document, which contained several entries as regards accrual of interest and payment of amount from time to time. The trial Court refused to receive it in evidence on the ground that it is not signed by anyone nor stamped. It may be true that in the ordinary course, a receipt is signed by the person, who has received the amount mentioned in it. However, if one looks at the definition of receipt under sub- section (23) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’), it becomes clear that it is not mandatory that a valid receipt must be signed by the recipient. The definition reads as under: “Section 2 (23): “Receipt” includes any note, memorandum or writing- (a) whereby any money, or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note is acknowledged to have been received or (b) whereby any other movable property is acknowledged to have been received in satisfaction of a debt, or, (c) whereby any debt or demand, or any part of a debt or demand, is acknowledge to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgement, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person.” An unsigned receipt falls within the scope of Section 2 (23) (d) of the Act. It is a different matter whether the writing is that of the recipient and that needs to be addressed at a later stage in the suit. Therefore, mere fact that a particular document is not signed, it does not cease to be a receipt if it contains necessary recitals in the handwriting of the recipient. Coming to the aspect of stamp duty, Article 53 of Schedule I of the Act provides that stamp duty of Rs.1/- is payable on receipts of such nature. In case the receipt is not properly stamped, Section 35 (b) provides for the payment of penalty of Rs.3/- by the person tendering it and thereby the document becomes admissible. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The trial Court is directed to receive the document in question in evidence subject to payment of stamp duty of Rs.1/- and penalty of Rs.3/-. The petitioner shall, however, be under obligation to prove that the document is in the handwriting of the respondent, in case the latter disowns it. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt. 19.10.2010. kdl