ORDER R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. This revision preferred by the defendants challenges admissibility of the instrument dated 12-2-1988, forming basis of the suit, admitted by the trial Court in evidence as promissory note, treating it to be properly stamped. 2. The instrument reads as under: ^^ge xks;y bUMLVht] eqjSuk ok;nk djrs gSa fd ekax ij HkkbZ vkse izdk'k fey] eqjSuk dks vFkok ftls og fnykosa] :i;k vadu ipiu gtkj flQZ muls izkIr /ku ds cnys nsaxs] bl ij C;kt nj 1-50 izfr'kr ekfld ls izR;sd 180 fnu ckn ns; gksxkA eqjSuk Qkxqu cnh 9] laor 2044] psd ua- ------------------- FOR GOYAL INDUSTRIES fnukad 12&2&1988 Sd/- Partner. :i;s 55000@& GOYAL INDUSTRIES OLD MILL AREA, DATTPURA MORENA, M.P. [on adhesive stamp of 50 paise]" 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the document is not a promissory note, and if a promissory note, then being payable otherwise than on demand, is insufficiently stamped. It is further submitted that in the statement of plaintiff Om Prakash Mittal it was admitted that the amount of Rs. 55,000/- was advanced for a period of six months which also suggested that it was a promissory note, payable otherwise than on demand and more than three months after date or site, liable to payment of stamp duty under Article 49(b) read with Article 13(b)(ii) of the Stamp Act and the stamp duty being deficit, the document was liable to be not admitted in evidence. 4. Section 2(22) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 defines Promissory Note as under: -- "2. Definitions. -- In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context. - (1) to (21).. .. etc. etc.... (22) "Promissory note" means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; it also includes a note promising the payment of any sum of money out of any particular fund which may or may not be available, or upon any condition or contingency which may or may not be performed or happen;" 5. The main definition is merely referential. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines Promissory Note as under : -- "4. The main definition is merely referential. Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 defines Promissory Note as under : -- "4. "Promissory Note" -- A "Promissory note" is an instrument in writing (not being a bank note or a currency note) containing an unconditional undertaking, signed by the maker to pay a certain sum of money only to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument." 6. The proper stamp duty payable on a promissory note is to be found mentioned in Article 49 of the Stamp Act which reads as under : -- "49. Promissory note. -- [as defined by Section 2(22)] (a) when payable on demands -- (i) when the amount or Ten naye paise. or value does not exceed Rs. 250/-. (ii) when the amount or value Fifteen Naye Paise. exceeds Rs. 250/- but does not exceed Rs .1,000/-. (iii) in any other case Twenty-five paise. (b) when payable otherwise The same duty as a than on demand.... Bill of Exchange (No. 13) for the same amount payable otherwise than on demand." 7. It is well settled by a catena of decisions that to be a Promissory Note, the instrument must be : (i) in writing (ii) containing a promise to pay (the promise must be express, not merely inferential); (iii) the undertaking to pay must be unconditional; (iv) promise to pay must be for a certain sum of money and money alone; (v) the person to whom the promise is made or the payee should be certain; (vi) must be signed by the maker, the maker or the person signing being a certain person. Of course, a bank note or a currency note, though having all the insignia of a promissory note, would not be a promissory note within the meaning of this section. If all the ingredients of the section are satisfied and the predominant intention or the purpose of the instrument is to make it a negotiable instrument, it is a promissory note, the form being immaterial. 8. For the purpose of determining liability to stamp duty, the Stamp Act divides promissory note into two categories: (1) those payable on demand, and (2) those payable otherwise than on demand, that is, payable on or after an appointed date or period. 9. 8. For the purpose of determining liability to stamp duty, the Stamp Act divides promissory note into two categories: (1) those payable on demand, and (2) those payable otherwise than on demand, that is, payable on or after an appointed date or period. 9. I would first take up and dispose of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners whether it was open to the Court to take into consideration the plaint averments or the statement of the plaintiff, or any other oral evidence, for the matter of that, for determining the nature of the instrument. The answer is no. 10. In Kadorilal v. Sukklal, 1967 MPLJ 841 = AIR 1968 M.P. 4 a Division Bench of this Court on a review of several authorities held that the whole document, its tenor, the purpose for which it was executed, as described in the document itself, should be considered for determining the nature of the document and its liability to stamp duty; not any collateral circumstances which may be contained in evidence could be looked at. 11. In 'In the matter of Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Delhi, AIR 1968 Delhi 1' the Full Bench of Delhi High Court laid down the test for determination of nature of instrument for the purpose of stamp duty in the following terms: "For finding out the true character of an instrument, one has to read the instrument as a whole, and then find out its dominant purpose. A single instrument may embody several purposes. But what is relevant for the purpose of the Act, is the dominant purpose of the instrument." 12. In Mohindar Singh v. Nagina Mal, AIR I'112 Lahore 22 the Division Bench said : -- "....it is to the document itself that regard must be had". 13. In Lola Uttam Chand v. Perman Nand and Ors., AIR 1942 Lahore 265 the test laid down is : "the nature of a document can be determined only from the language it employs and the purpose which it is intended to serve." Din Mohammad, J. repelled the argument that the document should be looked at in the light of the plaint averments, stating that "it was not permissible." 14. The law is thus : To determine the nature of the document for the purpose of bringing it within the ambit of any particular Article of the Schedule of the Stamp Act so as to determine its liability to payment of stamp duty, regard must be had to the language of the instrument, the intention of the parties and the predominant purpose behind its execution all being determined from the document itself, and not by admitting evidence aliunde. 15. Whether the document is a promissory note or not is a question which need not detain me much, for the simple reason, that the document on its face satisfies all the essentials of a promissory note referred to in para 7 above. It is an instrument falling within the four corners of the definition of a 'promissory note'. 16. It is to be noted that the instrument in question contains an unconditional undertaking to pay a certain sum of money. Incorporation in the instrument of a term as to payment of interest does not make it any less a certain sum of money. The amount payable on the date of demand though not certain, yet is capable of being made certain. 17. In Balmukand Jainarayan and Anr. v. Ambadas Damodar and Ors., 1945 NLJ 456 - AIR 1946 Nag. 81 a Division Bench of this Court was faced with an instrument, relevant portion whereof (as translated) reads as under:-- "We have executed this promissory note for a total sum of Rs. 2,400/-.....made up of......On demand by you (we) will pay the amount of this promissory note along with compound interest at 13 annas per cent, per month with annual rest. (We) have executed this promissory note." The document on construction was held to be a promissory note. 18. In Raghunath Prasad v. Mangi Lal, AIR 1960 Rajasthan 20 the effect of incorporation of stipulation for payment of interest in an instrument purporting to be a promissory note was examined and it was held: "A document, which contains a promise to pay a sum of money with interest but does not specify the rate of interest is not a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2(22), Stamp Act, as the sum payable under it is not certain as required under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. If the rate of interest is specified in the document the certainty of the sum payable is in no way affected as it may be merely a matter of calculation to arrive at the sum payable. A sum of money is certain even though it can be arrived at by making certain calculations. The document by itself need not mention the sum of money payable under it in so many words to fall within the definition of the promissory note. If as a result of calculations, the process of which is indicated in the document itself, a definite sum can be arrived at, it cannot be said in such a case that there is no certainty about the sum of money. But if there is any vagueness in the document or any extrinsic evidence is to be imported for construing the document on this point it cannot be said that that document is a promissory note within the meaning of Section 2(22) of the Stamp Act." 19. It will be interesting to note the Division Bench decision in Lakshminath v. Benares Bank Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1929 Patna 136 which is a case very near to the case at hand. The promissory notes were expressed to be promises to pay on demand the two respective sums named therein "with interest at 10 percent per annum with quarterly rests." It was argued that the term 'quarterly rests' made the defendant liable to be sued for interest apart from principal at a time when the demand for payment may not have been made so that a subsequent endorsee would be uncertain what amount by way of principal and interest he was entitled to receive at the hands of the maker of the note. The Division Bench observed : 'The term 'quarterly rests' is a well known term and means nothing more than when ultimately the interest comes to be calculated, it is to be calculated on a certain basis or system, and by no means gives the holder or the promisee the right to sue for interest apart from the demand for the principal." "...these notes are for a sum certain within Sections 4 and 5 of the Act before mentioned and, therefore, are negotiable instruments within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881." 20. The promissory note in issue does contain an unconditional promise to pay a definite sum of money. The mere fact that it contains a term as to payment of interest at the rate of Re. 1.50 P. per cent per month does not make any difference; the amount undertaken to be paid still remaining a definite or certain sum of money, capable of being determined by simple calculation. The additional term that the interest shall be payable only after 180 days, reasonably construed, is merely a mode of calculation of interest. It does not mean and cannot be taken to mean that the amount was not payable on demand. The instrument remains a promissory note payable on demand. The promisor's liability of payment of interest has to be calculated only on expiry of every block of 180 days successively, meaning thereby that if the amount is repaid on demand being made on any day falling before the expiry of 180 days, the promisor would not be liable to pay interest for that incohate period falling short of the block of 180 days; the liability to pay interest ripening only on the expiry of the block of 180 days, each block of 180 days being calculated from the date of the instrument. The principal amount is certainly not an amount made payable otherwise than on demand or after 180 days. The language does not admit of construction that amount of interest can be claimed, recovered or sued for independently of the principal. It remains payable with principal but is to be calculated only for a block of 180 days each. 21. For the foregoing reasons this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court did not err in holding the instrument in question to be 'a promissory note payable on demand' liable to stamp duty under Article 49(a) of the Stamp Act and hence a properly stamped promissory note. 22. The revision is dismissed. No order as to the costs.