* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3865 of 2010 % 28-01-2011. # Menda Joga Rao. ..... Petitioner Vs. Varanasi Harinadham .....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar ^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri A. Ravi Shankar < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 1996 (1) ALT 917 (F.B.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3865 of 2010 Between: Menda Joga Rao ..... Petitioner AND Varanasi Harinadham .....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar Counsel for the respondent: Sri A. Ravi Shankar The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3865 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 26.06.2010 in O.S.No.169 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam (for short, “the lower Court”). The defendant in the suit is the petitioner. The respondent filed O.S.No.169 of 2007 in the lower Court for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,89,446/- along with interest @ 12% per annum. During the trial, the petitioner has raised an objection to the admission of the suit document on the plea that the same, which was described as a ‘receipt’ by the respondent – plaintiff, is in the nature of a ‘bond’ and that having not been properly stamped, the same is not admissible in evidence. The lower Court, after considering the recitals of the document, rejected the said plea of the petitioner. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. At the hearing, Sri M.V. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has committed an error in concluding that the document in question is a ‘receipt’ and not a ‘bond’. The learned counsel has taken me through the document, which is in vernacular language (Telugu) and submitted that the recitals therein clearly constitute ‘bond’. Sri Ravi Shankar, learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed this submission and supported the order of the lower Court. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the suit document is a ‘bond’ or ‘receipt’? The definitions of ‘bond’ and ‘receipt’ under Sections 2(5) and 2(23) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 respectively are as under: “2(5) “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.” “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 acknowledged to have been satisfied or discharged, or (d) which signifies or imports any such acknowledgment, and whether the same is or is not signed with the name of any person.” In the suit document, it is stated that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ Rs.2.50 ps was received by the petitioner from the respondent. The document is attested by two persons. On a careful analysis of the definition of ‘bond’, as reproduced above, it is evident that the requirement of obligation by a person to pay money to another needs to be fulfilled in respect of the transactions covered by all the limbs of the provision, namely; (a) to (c). It is not in dispute that the recitals contained in the suit document do not contain any such obligation on the part of the petitioner to pay the money to the respondent. In the judgment of the Full Bench in Bolisetti Bhavannarayana @ Venkata Bhavannarayana vs. Kommuru Vullakki Cloth Merchant Firm, Tenali, rep., by partner Kommuru Vullakki and others[1] on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, this Court inter alia held that as the definition of ‘bond’ is inclusive and not exhaustive, even if it did not contain attestation, that does not mean that such a document would not be included in or excluded from the definition of ‘bond’. In my opinion, this judgment does not, in any manner, help the petitioner’s case because, as noted above, obligation to pay money constitutes the core of the instrument, if it is to attract the description of ‘bond’. The main purpose of ‘receipt’ is acknowledgment of money, movable property or bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note either in connection with borrowing or repayment as the case may be. Indeed, the suit document squarely falls under clause (a) of Section 2(23) which relates to a transaction whereby any money or any bill of exchange, cheque or promissory note, is acknowledged to have been received. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has received money which he has acknowledged by executing the suit document. Even if the ‘receipt’ was attested by two witnesses that by itself does not constitute ‘bond’, unless the executant of the document has undertaken the obligation to pay the money thereunder. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CRPMP No.5166 of 2010 is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 28.01.2011 ES LR copies to be marked. [1] 1996 (1) ALT 917 (F.B.)