T. N. VALLINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant herein. ( 2 ) THE suit for recovery of money in Original Suit No. 71 of 1981 on the file of the learned Munsiff, Karwar was decreed on 21-9-1984. On appeal in Regular Appeal No. 70 of 1984, the learned Civil Judge, Karwar, dismissed the same on 12-11-1986 confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Hence this second appeal by the defendant. ( 3 ) THE suit for recovery of Rs. 9,315/- wherein Rs. 6,000/- is the principal and Rs. 3,315/- as the interest was instituted on the basis of the promissory note. It was alleged in the plaint the families of the plaintiff and the defendant knew each other since their forefathers and they had business transactions between them and were having thick friendly relationship with each other. In about 1974, for his plan of starting a beaten rice and floor mill at Majali Village, the defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to make the plaintiff a partner on the plaintiff investing an amount of Rs. 6,000/ -. The Mill was commissioned. But, later the defendant requested the plaintiff to withdraw from the partnership business and undertook to return the amount of Rs. 6,000/- with interest. Evidencing this, defendant executed a promissory note and sent it to the plaintiff. As the defendant could not pay the amount as promised by him, he executed another vachan patra and promissory note dated 19-12-1977 agreeing to pay the first instalment of Rs. 2,000/- by the end of December, 1978, Rs. 2000/- by the end of December, 1977 and the rest of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- by the end of december, 1980. The interest was to be Rs. 15 per hundred per annum. Since the defendant did not pay the amount under one pretext or the other, plaintiff issued him a notice. But the defendant did not reply nor did he pay the amount. Hence this suit for the recovery of the same". ( 4 ) IN the written statement the following contentions were raised: "absolutely there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant except business relationship. The defendant was having a shop and he was dealing in coconut, banana and other articles. The plaintiff used to sell his products to the defendant as he was offering good price. ( 4 ) IN the written statement the following contentions were raised: "absolutely there is no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant except business relationship. The defendant was having a shop and he was dealing in coconut, banana and other articles. The plaintiff used to sell his products to the defendant as he was offering good price. However, there was slack of business in the year 1974 and the defendant could not pay the price of the commodities purchased previously. In the year 1974, the defendant agreed to execute a demand promissory note for Rs. 6,000/- which included the profit margin by way of interest though the actual repayment was to be less than Rs. 5,000/ -. It is not at all a fact that the defendant prepared to make the plaintiff as a partner in the Mill which was established as stated in the plaint para 2. It is true that the defendant could not run the mill and also other business for various reasons including on health ground. He incurred loss in such business. However, he paid some sum as and when he could pay. Between 1974 to 1977 he made repayment of at least Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/ -. The plaintiff calculated profit-cum-interest again just like a Marwadi prepares an account and forced the defendant to execute in the style of vachan patra or promissory note dated 19-7-1997 again for Rs. 6,000/ -. In fact, in the year 1977 or on 19-12-1977 not a pie from the plaintiff was received and as such absolutely there is no consideration for this alleged vachan karar. The said vachan karar or pronote is not admissible in evidence. ( 5 ) I am giving the details of the pleadings as in the second appeal the question regarding the validity of the promissory is raised. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court decreed the suit and the Appellate Court confirmed that decree. In the second appeal the main question raised is that the suit promissory note Ex. P-3 was not adequately stamped and that the same could not be admitted in evidence under the provisions of Section 34 of the Karnataka stamp Act and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. In the second appeal the main question raised is that the suit promissory note Ex. P-3 was not adequately stamped and that the same could not be admitted in evidence under the provisions of Section 34 of the Karnataka stamp Act and Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. Before going into the question as to whether the document which is described as a promissory and execution of such is not denied by the defendant as a promissory note within the meaning of negotiable Instruments Act the promise has to be seen. The alleged promissory note Ex. P-3 reads thus:"rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand only) on demand, I vishnu Upendra Shet Govekar of Majali, Taluka Karwar, n. Kanara hereby promise to pay to Sri Sheshagiri givottam Prabhu Desai Boruskar of Boms in Lalyam, taluk Cancona, Goa a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Six Thousand only) to run interest at 15% (Fifteen per cent) per annum for the value received. The first instalment of Rs. 2,000/- together with interest due thereon will be paid by the end of December 1978. The second instalment of Rs. 2,000/- together with interest thereon will be paid by the end of december 1979, and the last instalment of Rs. 2,000/- together with interest thereon by 15th December, 1980. If possible I may pay the amount or part thereof with interest any time. This promissory note commence from 19th december, 1977. This promissory note is in lieu of the previous one which expires on 20th December, 1977. This is on my own initiative accord". ( 7 ) THREE ingredients of the promissory note are: (1) unconditional undertaking; (2) to pay a specific/certain sum of money; (3) to the owner or to the bearer of the instrument. The document in this case viz,, Ex. P-3 contains clause like payment of instalment and how the payment will be made etc. Therefore, ex. P-3 does not satisfy any condition defined in the definition of the promissory note and as such can be construed only as a bond and not as a promissory note. I have perused Ex. P-1 which is on one rupee stamp paper. Though it is titled as promissory note, it has to be considered only as a bond. Mere nomenclature of the document does not justify the nature of the document. I have perused Ex. P-1 which is on one rupee stamp paper. Though it is titled as promissory note, it has to be considered only as a bond. Mere nomenclature of the document does not justify the nature of the document. ( 8 ) WHEN the document is construed as a bond, decree can be passed on such bond, as rightly pointed out by the Courts below. The next point that has to be considered is that the defendant has admitted the receipt of money. In this view, there is absolutely no merit in the second appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial court. The regular second appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .