V.B. Raju, J.
1. In this revision application, the question relates to the order of the Assistant Judge of Jamnagar ordering that the document, Ex. 3/1, upon which the suit was based is liable to stamp duty of Rs. 75/- together with penalty of Rs. 750/-. He came to this conclusion, because he held that it was a bond. If this conclusion is incorrect, it would be a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction, because the whole suit is basedupon Ex. 3/1. The bond is defined in Section 2(c) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
2. No doubt, this is an inclusive definition, but before a document can become a bond, a person executing the document must oblige himself to pay money or deliver grain or agricultural produce to another. There must be an obligation. To enter into an agreement for the purchase of a house or a ship would not amount to a bond unless there is a clear obligation as stated above. To say that if certain amount of money is not paid the transaction would become void or cancelled would not make the document one wherein the person executing the document obliges himself to pay money etc. In the document in question, Ex. 3/1, there is a recital that if the money is paid the name would be transferred. This does not amount to an obligation to pay the money. Therefore, the document in question is not a bond.
3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also relies on Clause (2) to the proviso to Section 3 of the Bombay Stamp Act. But there is a finding of fact of the Court below that on the evidence it is not possible to prove the identity of the ship. As this is a question of fact, it cannot be argued in revision. But for the reasons given in the previous paragraph, the document is not a bond. The order passed by the learned Assistant Judge is set aside and the order passed by the trial Court stands.