SUBHASH RATANLAL Vs. NASEEM BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mundra, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of certain amount against the present respondents and in it they have produced a document titled agreement dated 7.9.2004 in support of their contention. The present respondents raised an objection and contended that it is a bond and, therefore, the document should be impounded. The contention of present petitioners in reply was that it is only an acknowledgment and the Court below has by impugned order dated 13.8.2008 held that the document was not an acknowledgment but a bond. It has, therefore, allowed the objection raised by the present respondents and directed the petitioners/ plaintiffs to pay requisite stamp duty.

(3.) Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the petitioners, by relying upon the definition of Bond in Section 2(c) of Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) contends that the document dated 7.9.2004 is not basically attested by the witness. He further states that the document itself shows that it is in respect of old or pre-existing liability. He, therefore, states that on both these counts, the document cannot be treated as a bond and ought to have been read as acknowledgment. He relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Patel Stone Trading Company vs. Ramsing, reported at AIR 1975 Bom. 79, particularly paragraph 4.