He refers to a Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in v. Madandas Panika and another reported in AIR

C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.12.2024 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.4683 of 2024 andC.M.P.No.26180 of 2024K.Vijayalakshmi... PetitionerVs.A.Gowriammal (Died),1.A.Mohanasundaram2.A.LoganathanA.Natraj (Died)3.A.Visalakshi4.T.Suseela5.T.Sivamani6.Chandrakala7.S.Mallika8.T.Kavitha9.N.Gandhimathi10.N.Deepak ... RespondentsPRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 14.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, allow the present revision. For Petitioner: Mr.Subhang P Nair1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024 For R6 to 8: Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar O R D E RThis civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, dated 14.06.2024, passed in O.S.No.40 of 2016.2.O.S.No.40 of 2016 is a suit for partition and separate possession. During the course of trial, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2023. She wanted a document dated 01.03.2013 to be received as an exhibit on her side. According to the plaintiff, it is a promissory note and not a demand promissory note, since the words “on demand” is absent in the document. Calculating the stamp duty as per Article 13(b) (2), she claims that the deficit stamp duty will be Rs.21,240/-. She arrived at this figure because the value of the promissory note is Rs.1,77,00,000/-. The learned Trial Judge accepted the memo on 26.04.2024. 3.By impugned order, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that it is not a promissory note, but a bond within the meaning of Section 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 20242(5) of the Stamp Act and directed the instrument to be valued in terms of Article 15. Hence the revision.4.I have heard Mr.Subhang P Nair for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar for the respondents.5.Mr.Subhang P Nair places reliance upon Section 13 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and pleads that a negotiable instrument should be treated as promissory note when it is expressed to be payable to a particular person and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it will not be transferable. He points out that by virtue of Section 2 (5) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act, a document which is similar to a promissory note is treated as a bond when it contains the words that, it is not payable to an order or bearer. He states that the impounded documents enclosed at Page No.29 of the typed set of papers carries the following words, vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l ,lj;jpy; fl;olk; fl;Lk; mtru epkpj;jk; fhuzkhf 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024ehsJ njjpapy; j';fsplkpUe;J fldhf U:gha; 1.77.00.000-? (U:gha; xU nfhona vGgj;jp VG yl;rk; kl;Lk;) kl;Lk; ,jd; fPH;f;fhZk; rhl;rpfs; Kd;gl buhf;fkhfg; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;nsd;/ nkw;go fld; bjhif U:gha; xU nfhona vGgj;jp VG yl;rj;jpida[k; ehd; (6) MW khj fhyf; bfLtpw;Fs; j';fSf;Fr; brYj;jp ,e;j gpuhkprhp nehl;il ehd; thg!; bgw;Wf; bfhs;ntdhft[k;/Therefore, it has to be treated only as a promissory note payable to a person and not as a bond as treated by the learned Trial Judge.6.Per contra, Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar pleads that the document cannot be treated as a promissory note because it has been attested by witnesses. He refers to a Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Santsingh Vs. Madandas Panika and another reported in AIR 1976 MP 144 (FB) to press home this point. He relies upon paragraph Nos.7, 11 & 12 of the said judgment to sustain the order of the Trial Judge.7.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 20248.As pointed out by the Full Bench in the order for a document to be treated as bond, it must have the following characteristics;-(i)There must be an undertaking to pay;(ii)The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain;(iii)The payment will be to another named in the instrument;(iv)The maker should sign it;(v) The instrument must be attested by a witness; and(vi) It must not be payable to order or bearer.9.The Full Bench has pointed out that a bond has two features, namely, a positive feature and a negative feature. The positive feature being that it must be attested by witnesses, and the negative feature is that it must not be payable to order or bearer. If either of these characteristics are absent, then, it would not fall within the scope of bond under Section 2 (5) (b) of the Stamp Act. 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 202410.Section 2 (5) (b) makes it clear that in order to come within the scope of a bond, the document must state that it is not payable to an order or bearer, whereby, a persons obliges himself to pay money to another. The relevant portion of the document has been extracted above. 11.The understanding of the document would show that Annamalai Gounder had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,77,00,000/- for urgent construction purposes and had undertaken to repay the said amount to one Vijayalakshmi within a period of six months from the date of the document. The words “j';fSf;F ”implies that it is payable to Vijayalakshmi i.e., to an order or bearer. Since the negative feature as pointed out by the Full Bench is absent in this case, it would fall within the scope of a promissory note, not being a demand promissory note. 12.In fact, the very Paragraph which Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar relies upon, namely, paragraph 11, states that an instrument, which is not payable to bearer or order, but is attested will be treated only as a bond. Since the document specifies that it is payable to Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, I am not in a 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024position to sustain the view taken by the learned Trial Judge. 13.In the light of the above discussions, the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, is set aside. The document shall be treated as a promissory note. The Court shall calculate and collect the deficit stamp duty accordingly.14.Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands allowed, consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.sli 16.12.2024Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderNCC: Yes/NoV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.sliTo:III Additional District Court, Coimbatore.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024C.R.P.No.4683 of 202416.12.20248 of 8

C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 16.12.2024 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANC.R.P.No.4683 of 2024 andC.M.P.No.26180 of 2024K.Vijayalakshmi... PetitionerVs.A.Gowriammal (Died),1.A.Mohanasundaram2.A.LoganathanA.Natraj (Died)3.A.Visalakshi4.T.Suseela5.T.Sivamani6.Chandrakala7.S.Mallika8.T.Kavitha9.N.Gandhimathi10.N.Deepak ... RespondentsPRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 14.06.2024 passed in O.S.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, allow the present revision. For Petitioner: Mr.Subhang P Nair1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024 For R6 to 8: Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar O R D E RThis civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the III Additional District Court, Coimbatore, dated 14.06.2024, passed in O.S.No.40 of 2016.2.O.S.No.40 of 2016 is a suit for partition and separate possession. During the course of trial, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A.No.5 of 2023. She wanted a document dated 01.03.2013 to be received as an exhibit on her side. According to the plaintiff, it is a promissory note and not a demand promissory note, since the words “on demand” is absent in the document. Calculating the stamp duty as per Article 13(b) (2), she claims that the deficit stamp duty will be Rs.21,240/-. She arrived at this figure because the value of the promissory note is Rs.1,77,00,000/-. The learned Trial Judge accepted the memo on 26.04.2024. 3.By impugned order, the learned Trial Judge came to a conclusion that it is not a promissory note, but a bond within the meaning of Section 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 20242(5) of the Stamp Act and directed the instrument to be valued in terms of Article 15. Hence the revision.4.I have heard Mr.Subhang P Nair for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar for the respondents.5.Mr.Subhang P Nair places reliance upon Section 13 of the Negotiable Instrument Act and pleads that a negotiable instrument should be treated as promissory note when it is expressed to be payable to a particular person and does not contain words prohibiting transfer or indicating an intention that it will not be transferable. He points out that by virtue of Section 2 (5) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act, a document which is similar to a promissory note is treated as a bond when it contains the words that, it is not payable to an order or bearer. He states that the impounded documents enclosed at Page No.29 of the typed set of papers carries the following words, vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l ,lj;jpy; fl;olk; fl;Lk; mtru epkpj;jk; fhuzkhf 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024ehsJ njjpapy; j';fsplkpUe;J fldhf U:gha; 1.77.00.000-? (U:gha; xU nfhona vGgj;jp VG yl;rk; kl;Lk;) kl;Lk; ,jd; fPH;f;fhZk; rhl;rpfs; Kd;gl buhf;fkhfg; bgw;Wf; bfhz;Ls;nsd;/ nkw;go fld; bjhif U:gha; xU nfhona vGgj;jp VG yl;rj;jpida[k; ehd; (6) MW khj fhyf; bfLtpw;Fs; j';fSf;Fr; brYj;jp ,e;j gpuhkprhp nehl;il ehd; thg!; bgw;Wf; bfhs;ntdhft[k;/Therefore, it has to be treated only as a promissory note payable to a person and not as a bond as treated by the learned Trial Judge.6.Per contra, Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar pleads that the document cannot be treated as a promissory note because it has been attested by witnesses. He refers to a Full Bench judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Santsingh Vs. Madandas Panika and another reported in AIR 1976 MP 144 (FB) to press home this point. He relies upon paragraph Nos.7, 11 & 12 of the said judgment to sustain the order of the Trial Judge.7.I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 20248.As pointed out by the Full Bench in the order for a document to be treated as bond, it must have the following characteristics;-(i)There must be an undertaking to pay;(ii)The sum should be a sum of money but not necessarily certain;(iii)The payment will be to another named in the instrument;(iv)The maker should sign it;(v) The instrument must be attested by a witness; and(vi) It must not be payable to order or bearer.9.The Full Bench has pointed out that a bond has two features, namely, a positive feature and a negative feature. The positive feature being that it must be attested by witnesses, and the negative feature is that it must not be payable to order or bearer. If either of these characteristics are absent, then, it would not fall within the scope of bond under Section 2 (5) (b) of the Stamp Act. 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 202410.Section 2 (5) (b) makes it clear that in order to come within the scope of a bond, the document must state that it is not payable to an order or bearer, whereby, a persons obliges himself to pay money to another. The relevant portion of the document has been extracted above. 11.The understanding of the document would show that Annamalai Gounder had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,77,00,000/- for urgent construction purposes and had undertaken to repay the said amount to one Vijayalakshmi within a period of six months from the date of the document. The words “j';fSf;F ”implies that it is payable to Vijayalakshmi i.e., to an order or bearer. Since the negative feature as pointed out by the Full Bench is absent in this case, it would fall within the scope of a promissory note, not being a demand promissory note. 12.In fact, the very Paragraph which Mr.C.Santhosh Kumar relies upon, namely, paragraph 11, states that an instrument, which is not payable to bearer or order, but is attested will be treated only as a bond. Since the document specifies that it is payable to Tmt.Vijayalakshmi, I am not in a 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024position to sustain the view taken by the learned Trial Judge. 13.In the light of the above discussions, the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Coimbatore, is set aside. The document shall be treated as a promissory note. The Court shall calculate and collect the deficit stamp duty accordingly.14.Accordingly, the civil revision petition stands allowed, consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No costs.sli 16.12.2024Internet:YesIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non speaking orderNCC: Yes/NoV.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.sliTo:III Additional District Court, Coimbatore.7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.4683 of 2024C.R.P.No.4683 of 202416.12.20248 of 8