Receipt versus promissory note: an acknowledgment of money with a repayment promise remained a receipt and could be impounded.

An instrument acknowledging receipt of money and promising repayment within six months was treated as a receipt, not a promissory note, because it did not satisfy the statutory test of negotiability or the requirement of an unconditional promise to pay a certain person or bearer. The added repayment undertaking did not change its essential character as an acknowledgment of money received. Once classified as a receipt, the instrument remained subject to impounding and admissibility rules applicable to receipts under the Stamp Act, and the objection that it was a promissory note failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the document acknowledging receipt of money and containing an undertaking to repay within six months was a promissory note or a receipt under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899; (ii) whether the document was liable to be impounded and admitted in evidence as a receipt.

Issue (i): Whether the document acknowledging receipt of money and containing an undertaking to repay within six months was a promissory note or a receipt under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Analysis: A promissory note requires a written instrument containing an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money to, or to the order of, a certain person or bearer. The essential feature is negotiability, along with certainty of the sum and an unconditional promise signed by the maker. The document here acknowledged receipt of Rs. 5,00,000 from the plaintiff and added a promise to repay in six months, but it did not specify the person to whom payment was to be made in a manner satisfying the requirement of payment to a certain person. The inclusive definition of receipt covers acknowledgment of money received, and the additional promise did not alter that character because the document did not answer the statutory test of a promissory note.

Conclusion: The document was a receipt and not a promissory note.

Issue (ii): Whether the document was liable to be impounded and admitted in evidence as a receipt.

Analysis: Once the document was held to be a receipt, it fell within the scope of the Stamp Act provisions governing admissibility and impounding of unstamped or insufficiently stamped instruments. The objection based on the document being a promissory note and outside the ambit of receipt therefore failed. The document was amenable to impounding as a receipt.

Conclusion: The document was liable to be impounded, and the court below erred in treating it as an inadmissible promissory note.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded because the instrument was held to be a receipt carrying an acknowledgment of money received, not a promissory note, and it was directed to be referred for impounding under the Stamp Act.

Ratio Decidendi: An instrument that acknowledges receipt of money remains a receipt even if it also contains a promise to repay, unless it satisfies the statutory requirements of a promissory note, including negotiability and payment to a certain person or bearer.

---