ORDER
S.V. Maruthi, J.
1. The point involved in this revision is whether the document in question is a bond or a promissory note. The learned District Munsif held that it is a bond as it is attested by two witnesses and also the vital words “payable to or your order” are missing in the said document. Against that order, the defendant has filed the present-revision petition.
2. The main contention of the petitioner is that merely because the document does not mention the words “payable to or your order” it does not cease to be a promissory note. In support of his contention he relied on a decision in M. Akbar Khan v. Attar-Singh, AIR 1936 P.C. 171. In that case, the Privy Council while considering whether a document is merely a receipt or a promissory note held as follows:
“That the document was not a promissory note but was merely a receipt containing the terms on which the amount was to be refunded. Being primarily a receipt even if coupled with the promise to pay, it was not a promissory note. As the document did not record or purport to record all the terms of the contract between the parties and as there was nothing in the document explaining how the money came to be received the parties were not prevented from showing that it was paid by way of loan or deposit or for some other purpose.”
He has also relied on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kadortlal v. Sukhlal, , wherein it was held as follows:
“A document essentially a promissory note but not containing a recital to be payable to order, and which becomes negotiable by reason of Section 13 Explanation (1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, though attested by witness, should be treated as a promissory note for purpose of Stamp Act also.”
3. Further relying on a decision in Mahmood Hassan Khan v. C.C. Revenue Authority, AIR 1977 A.P. 1 he contended that the document in question is a promissory note and not a bond and therefore the order of the learned Judge is liable to be set aside.
4. Counsel appearing for the respondent relying on the decision of a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Santsingh v. Madandas, , contended that the characteristic features of a bond which distinguishes it from the promissory note are that it is not negotiable and that it has to be attested by witnesses. As long as these two characteristic features are present in the document, it should be treated as a bond and not a promissory note. He also pointed out that the Full Bench also referred to the earlier decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kadortlal v. Sukhlal (2 supra) and over-ruled the same and hence the decision in Kadortlal v. Sukhlal (2 supra) is no more a good law. The counsel also relied on a decision in J.S. Shah v. M.H. Gandhi, wherein it was held as follows:
“But if a promissory note falling Under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and therefore Under Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act, is attested and not made payable to order or bearer it would be a bond falling Under Section 2(5)(b) of the Stamp Act and not a promissory note Under Section 2(22) of that Act.”
5. In State Bank of Hyderabad v. Ranganath Rathi, a Bench consisting of Satyanarayana Raju and Ananthanarayana Ayyar, JJ., held that an instrument attested by witnesses and not payable to order or bearer, is clearly a bond.
6. The question therefore is, whether the instrument in question is a bond or a promissory note. Admittedly, the instrument is attested by witnesses and it is not payable to order or bearer. In view of the judgments in State Bank of Hyderabad v. Ranganath Rathi, , J.S. Shah v. M.H. Gandhi, and Santsingh v. Madandas (4 supra) where consistent views were taken that the instrument is a bond if it is attested by witnesses and it is not payable to order or bearer, I hold that the document in question is a bond and not a promissory note. The learned Judge was perfectly right in holding that the document is a bond and I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
7. The C.R.P. is dismissed. No Costs.