Stamp classification by instrument's face and loss of jurisdiction after final decree shape the court's ruling.

An instrument must be classified for stamp purposes on its own face: where it contains an unconditional promise to pay on demand, is attested, and is not payable to order or bearer, it is a bond and not a promissory note. The amendment enlarging negotiability under the law of negotiable instruments could not be imported to alter its stamp character. The court also held that, after suits had been finally disposed of and decrees signed and sealed, the Subordinate Judge lacked jurisdiction to direct deposit of stamp duty and penalty under the Stamp Act. The impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the instruments were promissory notes or bonds within the meaning of the Stamp Act; (ii) whether, after the suits had been disposed of and decrees signed and sealed, the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to direct deposit of stamp duty and penalty under the Stamp Act.

Issue (i): whether the instruments were promissory notes or bonds within the meaning of the Stamp Act.

Analysis: The documents contained unconditional undertakings to pay a specified sum on demand, were attested by witnesses, and were not payable to order or bearer on their face. The definition of promissory note in the Stamp Act follows the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the amendment enlarging negotiability could not be imported so as to alter the character of the instruments for stamp purposes. For determining stamp liability, the instruments had to be judged as they stood.

Conclusion: The instruments were bonds and not promissory notes, and they ought to have borne stamp duty as bonds.

Issue (ii): whether, after the suits had been disposed of and decrees signed and sealed, the Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to direct deposit of stamp duty and penalty under the Stamp Act.

Analysis: Once the suits had been finally disposed of and the decrees signed and sealed, the statutory power under the Stamp Act to act in the manner adopted by the Subordinate Judge was no longer available. The provisions relied upon were inapplicable at that stage, and the court below could not reopen the matter in the manner attempted.

Conclusion: The Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.

Final Conclusion: The orders directing deposit of stamp duty and penalty were set aside, although the instruments were held to be bonds for stamp purposes.

Ratio Decidendi: For stamp purposes, an instrument must be classified on its own face and not by importing amendments enlarging negotiability under the law of negotiable instruments, and the statutory power to deal with unstamped documents cannot be exercised after the suit has been finally disposed of and decrees signed and sealed.

---