Judgment :- 1. The petitioner brought a suit on an instrument purporting to be a promissory note executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant and endorsed by the latter to the plaintiff. When the instrument was sought to be put in evidence objection was taken by the first defendant that it is a promissory note falling within Art.49(b) of. the Indian Stamp Act and that as it bears only stamp duty appropriate under Art.49(a) it was inadmissible. This objection was upheld by the court below by the order which is the subject of revision in C.R.P. No. 377 of 1974. The plaintiff subsequently applied for review of the order and for admitting the instrument in evidence, but this motion was rejected by the order which is challenged in C.R.P. 749 of 1974. The two revisions which were referred to a Bench by a learned judge were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The controversial suit document which is styled a promissory note reads thus: It was contended by the petitioner in the first place that the instrument is a promissory note payable on demand falling within Art.49(a) and that accordingly the stamp duty which it now carries is adequate. We find it impossible to accept this contention in the face of the stipulation contained in the instrument that the amount is payable one year after. The expression "on demand" has, unlike in ordinary parlance, a technical meaning in the law of negotiable instruments and it means "at once", forthwith" or "immediately". The use of the expression Hcp hAjw Ignav imports that it is not payable at once or forthwith or immediately. It follows that the instrument is not a promissory note payable on demand and for that reason it is outside Art.49(a). 3. The next and alternative limb of petitioner's argument is that it is a bond and not a promissory note and that it would therefore be open to him, if the stamp duty is insufficient to make up the deficit, pay the penalty and put it in evidence, unaffected by the provision in proviso (a) to S.35 of the Indian Stamp Act which excludes promissory notes from its benefit. This argument is grounded upon the use of the twin expressions in the instrument. This argument is grounded upon the use of the twin expressions in the instrument. According to counsel the expression after the stipulation of the term of one year, makes the instrument conditional and takes it out of the definition of promissory note under S.2 (22) of the Stamp Act. In support of this contention counsel placed reliance upon Muthu Gounder v. Perumayammal, AIR. 1961 Madras 347, and Radha Devi . Dhanik Lal, AIR. 1971 Patna 378. In AIR. 1961 Madras 347 the instrument was more or less similarly worded as in this case and a learned judge held that in view of the period fixed for the payment of money and use of the expression "on demand", there was no unconditional promise, that the instrument was not in consequence a promissory note and that it could be received in evidence on being validated after payment of the proper stamp duty. This decision has been followed in AIR. 1971 Patna 378. The terms of the documents that came up for construction in that case are not quite clear but it appears to have been a letter passed by the debtor to the creditor making certain amount payable by a particular date and containing the words "on demand". A bench of the Patna High Court held that the instrument was only a bond and Hot a promissory note. As against these decisions counsel for the respondents brought to our notice Aiyappankutty v. Mathoo Mathi & Others, 1954 KLT. 785, and Thenappa Chettiar v. Andiyappa Chettiar, AIR. 1971 Madras 290. In 1954 KLT. 785 a similar question was considered in respect of an instrument which was similarly worded. A bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in a judgment pronounced by M. S. Monon, J. (as he then was) held that it was a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and that it should bear stamp duty on that basis under Art.49 (b) of the Travancore-Cochin Stamp Act, 1125 which so far as relevant corresponds to Art.49 of the Indian Stamp Act. The bench also followed two decisions of the Madras High Court, AIR. 1935 Madras 23 and AIR. 1945 Madras 42. In AIR. 1971 Madras 290 the identical question fell to be considered in respect of an instrument, in almost similar terms as in the present case and in 1954 KLT. 785. The bench also followed two decisions of the Madras High Court, AIR. 1935 Madras 23 and AIR. 1945 Madras 42. In AIR. 1971 Madras 290 the identical question fell to be considered in respect of an instrument, in almost similar terms as in the present case and in 1954 KLT. 785. A bench of the Madras High Court considered the question in detail with reference to the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act and the Negotiable Instruments Act and came to the conclusion that the instrument was a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand falling under Art.49 (b). In the course of the judgment the learned judges discussed at some length the earlier decision in AIR. 1961 Madras 347 and noted that it had overlooked the second paragraph of S.5 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which provides that a promise or order to pay is not conditional within the meaning of S.4 by reason of the time for payment of the amount or any instalment thereof being expressed to be the lapse of certain period etc. The bench differed so basically from the view taken in AIR. 1961 Madras 347 as in effect to overrule it. 4. After hearing both sides we feel with respect, that the view taken in 1954 KLT. 785 and AIR. 1971 Madras 290 is correct. As noticed earlier the instrument in this case is made payable after a period of one year. We are not impressed with the contention that the circumstance that this is coupled with the words "on demand" would take away from the character of the instrument as a promissory note. S.19 of the Negotiable Instruments Act enacts that a promissory note or bill of exchange, in which no time for payment is specified, and a cheque are payable on demand. It must follow from this definition, by necessary implication, that if time for payment is specified a promissory note cannot be said to be payable on demand. If it is not so, it must be a promissory note payable otherwise than on demand and in our view the suit instrument has been correctly held to be such an instrument by the court below. The orders are correct and call for no interference. 5. The revisions are dismissed but without costs. Dismissed.