The petitioner filed O.S.No.8 of 2007, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, against the respondent, for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, on the strength of a document dated 5.1.2004. Question arose, as to the classification of the document, in the context of payment of stamp duty. The petitioner contended that the document in question is only a receipt, as defined under sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the Indian Stamp Act (for short the). The respondent, on the other hand, pleaded that the document also answers the description of bond, as defined under sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the. Through its order, dated 26.10.2007, the trial court held that the document is a bond. The said order is challenged in the CRP.

Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the document in question is a receipt, and it does not contain the ingredients of a bond. He submits that the respondent has acknowledged the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-, and no condition is incorporated in it, as provided for under clause (a) to Section 2 (5) of the Act, nor does it fulfill the conditions, stipulated under the other clauses of the said provision.

Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that apart from acknowledging the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/-, the petitioner had undertaken to repay that amount, and that document was attested by two witnesses, and thereby it deserves to be treated as bond.

Whenever money transactions take place, documents of different kinds are executed, which, in turn, depend upon the circumstances or conditions, subject to which the amount is paid. If it is a case of mere receipt of money, either in the form of repayment of amount due, or advancement of the money afresh, generally it would a receipt. In case, the document, apart from acknowledging the receipt, contains an obligation for repayment, the document would be either a promissory note, or bond, depending on the contents thereof. Though in both the cases, connotation of the obligation becomes necessary, the persons, whom the amount is payable, or the condition of payment thereof, assumes significance, to classify the document as promissory note, or bond. Many a time, the distinction among these three categories of documents, becomes very thin, and one is prone to be taken for the other.

In the instant case, the question is as to whether the document, dated 5.1.2004, said to have been executed by the respondent, answers the description of bond or receipt. It is beneficial to extract the two definitions.

2 (5) Bond:- 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 to 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:- 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;

From a perusal of the two definitions, certain salient features can be noticed. A bond manifests an obligation to pay. Circumstances, under which such obligations may arise, are different under the relevant clauses. The obligation as such, however, is common to all the three instances furnished in the inclusive definitions. This common feature can provide sufficient guidance for inclusion of other similar categories in the definition.

A receipt, on the other hand, does nothing more than, acknowledge the factum of receiving money or movable property. It does not connote any obligation for repayment or return of what is received under it. Therefore, if other niceties in the definition are excluded, the distinguishing feature between these two documents, is the presence or absence of obligation to pay. It is not necessary that the person, who is under obligation to pay, must have received the amount or agricultural produce, earlier.

If the obligation can be discerned from the document, it answers the description of bond.

The document, which is subject matter of the suit, not only acknowledged the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- from the petitioner, but also contains an obligation to repay it, within a period of three years from the date of document. There is no provision for interest. It is attested by two witnesses. Therefore, it is too difficult to treat this document as mere receipt. The trial court had examined the matter from correct perspective, and this court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

The C.R.P. is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.