JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiff against an order of the Additional District Judge, Jhalawar, holding that the Shah Jog Hundi on which the suit is based is inadmissible in evidence as it is not properly stamped.
(2.) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and satisfied that the decision is erroneous. A Shah Jog Hundi is only payable to a Shah namely a man of worth and substance known in the Bazar. The Hundi in suit shorn of superfluous verbage runs as follows: "kanhaiyalal Dulichand of Manohar Thana conveys his greetings to Kanhaiya Lal Dulichand of Manohar Thana. We have deposited the sum of Rs. 3,000/-for this Hundi with Kanhaiyalal Shrichand of Manohar Thana. Please pay to a Shah in accordance with the custom with regard to Shah Jog Hundis on Asad Badi 13 Smt. 2014. Sd/- Duli Chand 7-5-67". This Hundi was thus payable after a stated period. It was only payable to a Shah. The above Hundi is not a bill of exchange as defined under sec. 5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as it does not contain an unconditional order directing payment of money to a specified person or to the bearer of the instrument see - Mangal Sen vs. Ganeshilal (l ). By the local usage such a Hundi is negotiable. The definition of "bill of exchange" under the Stamp Act is wider and includes a Hundi. Sec. 2 (2) of the Stamp Act runs as follows: "bill of exchange" means a bill of exchange as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and includes also a hundi, and any other document entitling or purporting to entitle any person, whether named therein or not, to payment by any other person of, or to, draw upon any other person, for any of money. " In the above Hundi time for payment is specified. It is therefore not payable on demand within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sec. 19 of which runs as follows: "a promissory note or bill of exchange, in which no time for payment is specified and a cheque, are payable on demand. " The definition of a "bill of exchange payable on demand" under sec. 2 (3) of the Stamp Act is wider. All bills of exchange and all Hundis which are payable on demand are of course bills of exchange payable on demand for the purpose of the Stamp Act. Apart from such bills of exchange or Hundis the following classes of documents are also deemed to be bills of exchange payable on demand for purposes of the Stamp Act: " (a) an order for the payment of any sum of money by a bill of exchange or promissory note, or for the delivery of any bill of exchange or promissory note in satisfaction of any sum of money, or for the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen; (b) an order for the payment of any sum of money weekly, monthly, or at any other stated period and (c) a letter of credit, that is to say, any instrument by which one person authorises another to give credit to the person in whose favour it is drawn. " Bills of exchange payable on demand are exempt from stamp duty and on account of public policy the Legislature thought it fit to exempt the above classes of documents by enacting the fiction that they will be treated to be bills of exchange payable on demand although they are not actually so payable. The Hundi in suit is an order for the payment of a sum of money at a stated period. Under sec. 2 (3) (b) of the Stamp Act an order for the payment of any sum of money weekly, monthly or at any other stated periods is to be treated as a bill of exchange payable on demand for purposes of the Stamp Act. In my opinion the Hundi in suit being an order for the payment of a specified sum of money at a stated period is a bill of exchange payable on demand for the purpose of the Stamp Act. On behalf of the defendant it was contended that a reading of clause (b) of sec. 2 (3) goes to show that it is applicable only to sums payable in more than one instalment. Under sec. 13 (2) of the Central General Clauses Act which is applicable for interpreting the Stamp Act "plural" includes "singular" and vice versa. If a sum of money is payable in two instalments at stated periods then it is indisputable that the document which contains an order for the payment of this money is a bill of exchange payable on demand under the Stamp Act. If instead of two instalments the money is payable in one instalment then I do not see why the document containing an order for payment should not be treated as bill of exchange payable on demand. For under sec. 13 (2) the word "periods" includes the word "period" and the relevant part of the clause would read: "an order for the payment of any sum of money. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . at any. . . . . . . . . . . . stated period. " The Hundi in suit is therefore a bill of exchange payable on demand within the meaning of sec. 2 (3) of the Stamp Act and is therefore exempt from the payment of any duty. In an earlier case Tikamchand vs. Laxmichand (2) it was held that Shah Jog Hundi payable after specified date is payable on demand. The reasoning adopted in that decision is however not correct as was pointed out in Hanuman vs. Fattu (3 ). In Tikamchand's case the decision in Partabchand Ratanchand vs. Gilbert (4) was followed. That decision related to a post-dated cheque and was not applicable to a Hundi. A post dated cheque is not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and is therefore a cheque as defined in sec. 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. By virtue of sec. 19 of the Negotiable Instruments Act a cheque is always treated as being payable on demand.
(3.) IN an unreported decision Meghraj vs. Shivji (S. B. Civil Revision No. 105/1962 decided on 14-8-1962) referred to in Hanuman's case (3) the decision in Partab Chand Ratanchand vs. Gilbert (4) was applied even to a promissory note. Under sec. 19 of the Negotiable INstruments Act a promissory note in which time for payment is specified cannot be treated as being payable on demand. The Stamp Act does not contain an extended definition of a promissory note payable on demand. The decision in Meghraj vs. Shivji was therefore erroneous. In Hanuman's case the decision in Moolchand vs. Shanker Datta (5) was not referred to nor was sec. 2 (3) of the Stamp Act adverted to the observations made in that case with regard to a bill of exchange are erroneous. The Stamp Act contains an extended definition of a bill of exchange payable on demand. This definition was not considered. The question as to whether or not a bill of exchange expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand can be a bill of exchange payable on demand under the Stamp Act did not arise for decision in that case. Having reconsidered the observations made in Hanuman's case with regard to a bill of exchange in the light of the decision in Moolchand's case (5) I find that those observations are erroneous. These erroneous observations were followed by the learned Additional District Judge. I accordingly allow the revision application with costs, set aside the order of the trial court and hold that the Hundi in suit is admissible in evidence as it is exempt from stamp duty. .;