HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4140 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Chilumala Pratap Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. The revision petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission, at the request and with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties. The document dated 14/09/2005 executed by defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.21 of 2008 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet, is the subject for consideration herein. The document was produced by the plaintiffs in the suit during the course of evidence of P.W.1 and the defendants objected to its admissibility contending that it is a bond which has to be impounded for being duly stamped accordingly. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the contention and considered the document to be only an undertaking letter executed by the defendants 1 to 3 and can be admitted into evidence accordingly. The suit for recovery of money was filed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that the defendants, who purchased lands from them for a consideration of Rs.30,40,000/- under registered sale deeds, withheld part of the sale consideration to a tune of Rs.15,40,000/- to be paid after removal of any obstructions or Court cases or litigations or interference or police cases at the instance of one Nagender, who is the brother of the father of the plaintiffs, in the light of the information from the plaintiffs themselves to the defendants that the said Nagender was laying a claim to the properties sold. The plaintiffs claimed that none of the contingencies contemplated between the parties had arisen till 14/12/2005 the appointed date, and hence, the defendants are liable to pay the withheld portion of the sale consideration forthwith and as they did not pay, they sued them. The defendants in their written statement were disputing the absence of any litigations at the instance of Nagender and narrated the hurdles created by the documents executed by Nagender and the consequent litigations in having physical possession and enjoyment of the property purchased. The plaintiffs are relying on the document dated 14/09/2005 as evidencing the terms agreed between the parties in this regard and its enforceability or otherwise is primarily in question in the suit. A perusal of the document shows that it was specifically recited that if there were any difficulties in possessing or enjoying or developing the property purchased due to any objections from Nagender or any litigation at his instance, the plaintiffs had undertaken full responsibility for clearing all such objections and litigations before 14/12/2005. If everything was clear by 14/12/2005, the defendants had undertaken to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.15,40,000/- to the plaintiffs in cash. The document was styled as a voluntarily executed stamped debt document. It was duly attested by two witnesses and executed on a stamp for Rs.100/-. The plaintiffs styled it as agreement in the plaint and the trial Court felt the document to be an undertaking or undertaking affidavit alone and as the document, the execution of which is not disputed, is only concerning unpaid sale consideration which the plaintiffs are perfectly entitled to claim, consequently, it is only an undertaking or undertaking letter. Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, referred to the decision reported in State of Kerala and others v. McDowell & Co.Ltd.,[1] wherein the Apex Court dealt in detail with the question of what sort of document can be considered to be a bond within the meaning of the Kerala Stamp Act. The provisions of the Stamp Act in force in the State are in parimateria with the provisions under consideration of the Apex Court. The Apex Court after referring to the case law on the subject exhaustively and noting the consistent views of the various High Courts on this question, pointed out that an instrument must create an obligation to pay for the first time for purposes of levy of stamp duty and it must not be in recognition of any pre-existing right. The definition of bond under Section 2 (5) of the Stamp Act, 1899 which is an inclusive definition also refers to a person obliging himself to pay money to another under the instrument apart from the other requirements of a document to become a bond. Therefore, it appears that the obligation should be created for the first time under the document. But the document in question dated 14/09/2005 specifically states about the document being in respect of Rs.15,40,000/- payable by the defendants to the plaintiffs towards withheld portion of the sale consideration for the land sold under registered sale deeds, obviously, as a security against any possible litigation or objection at the instance of a third party. As no obligation was created under the document and in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the document in question cannot be considered to be a bond, and consequently, the impugned order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 04th December, 2009 SKM [1] 1994 Supp (2) SCC 605