Skip to content


Kadir MoithIn Pulavar Vs. Panduranga Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934Mad25
AppellantKadir MoithIn Pulavar
RespondentPanduranga Naidu
Cases ReferredLala v. Bhaga
Excerpt:
- .....v. bhaga (1901) 3 bom lr 699 the full bench held that such a document was a bond. i leave this point to the decision of the lower.....
Judgment:
ORDER

4. Since passing this order, my attention has been drawn to the fact that in Lala v. Bhaga (1901) 3 Bom LR 699 (FB) there was an attestation. I therefore had the order spoken to again after notice. It is clear that where there is no attestation, as in this case, the document cannot be a bond: vide Bidhuranjan Majumdar v. Mangan Sarkar AIR 1922 Cal 452; Reference under Act 1 of 1879 (1895) 17 All 211 and Reference under Stamp Act, Section 49 (1887) 10 Mad 158; vide also Section 2, Clause (5)(b), Stamp Act. That being the case, the last paragraph of my order will be amended as follows : for, 'I should have been inclined to regard it,' read, 'I regard it,' and omit the sentences, ' in the somewhat similar, Lala v. Bhaga (1901) 3 Bom LR 699 the Full Bench held that such a document was a bond. I leave this point to the decision of the lower Court.'


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //