1. This Civil 1st Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 12.8.2004 passed by the District Judge, Udhampur in a Civil Suit titled as Kulwant Singh v. Munna Lal, for short `impugned judgment hereinafter. BRIEF FACTS: 2. Kulwant Singh-Plaintiff/Appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 54,000/- against Munna Lal-defendant/respondent, on the ground that the plaintiff granted Rs. 54,000/- as a loan to Munna Lal-defendant for raising construction of his house, recoverable at the rate of 18% per annum interest, And, accordingly, Munna defendant executed a "HUNDI-DP NOTE" on 15th April, 1987. It is alleged that the defendant failed to return the said amount despite demand, constrained the appellant/plaintiff to file the suit. 3. The defendant/respondent appeared and contested the suit by the medium of written statement. Following four issues came to be framed:- "1. Whether the defendant obtained an amount of Rs. 54,000/- as loan from the plaintiff for construction of house at round and executed DP Note dated 15.4.97 in favour of the plaintiff, undertaking thereby to repay the said amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form as no legal notice has been served by the plaintiff upon the defendant prior to the filing of the suit? OPD 3. Whether the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed if so on what counts? OPD 4. Relief." 4. Plaintiff/Appellant examined Nirmal Singh, Suresh Kumar, and Makhan Lal, as his witness and also appeared himself in the Witness Box. 5. Defendant-respondent examined Subash Chander, Bittu Raj and Romesh, as his defence witness and also appeared himself in the Witness Box. 6. The trial Court, while deciding issue no. 1, held that the document is not a `Hundi-Promissory Note but it is `Bond in terms of the provisions of Stamp Act and, accordingly, decided issue no. 1 in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 7. The defendant has not pressed issue nos. 2 and 3 and, accordingly, came to be decided against the defendant. 8. The moot question for consideration is whether the document annexed, which is made the foundation of the suit is Hundi or a Bond. The trial Court has translated the Hindi version of the document into English language. 9. 7. The defendant has not pressed issue nos. 2 and 3 and, accordingly, came to be decided against the defendant. 8. The moot question for consideration is whether the document annexed, which is made the foundation of the suit is Hundi or a Bond. The trial Court has translated the Hindi version of the document into English language. 9. Learned counsel for the parties made a statement at the Bar that English version given by the trial Court is correct. 10. While going through the document and the translation made by the trial Court, it is crystal clear that defendant has agreed that in case he fails to liquidate the amount he has to transfer the house in the name of the plaintiff. The mode of payment is not certain but certain conditions have been made for liquidation of the amount. It is profitable to reproduce Section 2 Sub-Clause (5) and Section Sub-Clause 22 of the Stamp Act, 1977, herein:- "2 (5). Bond - "bond includes- (a) any instrument whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another, on condition that the obligation shall be void if a specified act is performed, or is not performed, as the case may be; (b) any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer, whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another; and (c) any instrument so attested, whereby a person obliges himself to deliver grain or other agricultural produce to another. 2 (22). Promissory Note. - "promissory note" means a promissory note as defined by the Negotiable Instrument Act; It also includes, a note promising the payment of any sum of money out 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;" 11. It is also profitable to reproduce Section 4 of The Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, herein. "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 the bearer of the instrument." 12. While going through the definition (supra), Promissory Note-Hundi must possess the following characteristics; it must be an instrument in writing other than a bank-note, or a currency-note. While going through the definition (supra), Promissory Note-Hundi must possess the following characteristics; it must be an instrument in writing other than a bank-note, or a currency-note. It must contain an un-conditional undertaking to make the payment and must be signed by the maker. 13. Section 2 Sub-clause 5 defines "Bond" as has been given hereinabove, it must have the following ingredients; the person who executes, has to undertake to make the payment and it must name the person to whom it is to be paid. It is not necessary that the mode of payment must be certain. It must not be payable to it or bearer and it must be signed by the witness. 14. As per the definition given in the Negotiable instrument Act, the document can be said to be a Promissory Note, when it is written in the document that the amount is payable to order, or bearer whereby executant obliges himself to make payment to certain person and it is not required to be signed by any witness. 15. The document, in hand, nowhere provides that when the amount is payable and the payment is not certain. It is also not known to whom and how it is payable. It is subject to conditions. The very important condition provided is that in case the defendant fails to make payment, he has to record his house in the name of plaintiff. Thus the document, on the face of it, is not a HUNDI or a Promissory Note but is a Bond. 16. In the given circumstances, the very foundation of the suit has been based on the document which is inadmissible in evidence. Thus the suit is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. 17. In the given circumstances, the trial Court has rightly decided issue no. 1 against the plaintiff/appellant and in favour of defendant/respondent. 18. Viewed thus, the impugned judgment and decree is upheld. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet and send down the record along with a copy of the judgment and decree.