Murari Mohun Roy Vs. Khetter Nath Mullick - Court Judgment |
| Civil |
| Kolkata |
| Dec-21-1887 |
| Wilson and ;O'Kinealy, JJ. |
| (1888)ILR15Cal150 |
| Murari Mohun Roy |
| Khetter Nath Mullick |
| Ferrier v. Ram Kulpa Ghose
|
stamp act, schedule i, clause 5 - document--agreement to pay. - 1. this is a reference made by the munsif of culna under section 617 of the code of civil procedure. he desires to know what is the proper construction to be placed on a document tendered in evidence in a case tried by him. that document runs as follows: 'this document, hand-note, is executed by me for the purpose of purchasing a ghor. i take from you rs. 7. i will pay interest on the sum at half-anna per rupee per mensem. having received the rs. 7 in cash, this hand-note is executed. dated 16th assar 1292 b.s.'2. the munsif is of opinion that the document does not fall within the definition of a bond as given in the stamp act. in this opinion we concur. he also considers that it is not a promissory note, and we are of the same opinion. the document under reference is very similiar to that set out in the case of ferrier v. ram kulpa ghose 23 w.r. 403. there the note ran as follows: 'received from mem saheb the sum of co's rs. 40, and i gave interest for one month, two rupees.' it was held that this document was not a promissory note nor a bond, but merely an agreement to pay. we are, therefore, of opinion that the present document is an agreement to pay, and as such is chargeable.....
1. This is a reference made by the Munsif of Culna under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He desires to know what is the proper construction to be placed on a document tendered in evidence in a case tried by him. That document runs as follows: 'This document, hand-note, is executed by me for the purpose of purchasing a ghor. I take from you Rs. 7. I will pay interest on the sum at half-anna per rupee per mensem. Having received the Rs. 7 in cash, this hand-note is executed. Dated 16th Assar 1292 B.S.'
2. The Munsif is of opinion that the document does not fall within the definition of a bond as given in the Stamp Act. In this opinion we concur. He also considers that it is not a promissory note, and we are of the same opinion. The document under reference is very similiar to that set out in the case of Ferrier v. Ram Kulpa Ghose 23 W.R. 403. There the note ran as follows: 'Received from Mem Saheb the sum of Co's Rs. 40, and I gave interest for one month, two rupees.' It was held that this document was not a promissory note nor a bond, but merely an agreement to pay. We are, therefore, of opinion that the present document is an agreement to pay, and as such is chargeable with duty under Clause 5 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act.