Tamasuk in Nepal 2026: Promissory Note Format & Enforcement

Family loans in Nepal are still very largely written by hand. A relative needs cash for a medical bill, a neighbour borrows for a daughter's marriage, a small trader takes working capital from a friend — and the paper that records the transaction is almost never a bank-printed promissory note. It is a tamasuk: a written deed of acknowledgment, signed by the borrower, witnessed by two people, and very often stamped at the ward office of the local government. When the loan goes bad, the tamasuk is the single piece of evidence the creditor takes to the District Court.

The governing law is the Muluki Civil Code 2074 (2017), specifically the chapter on transactions (lenden) running from Section 474 to Section 492, published by the Nepal Law Commission. That chapter sets out the form a tamasuk must take, the maximum interest that may be charged when the deed itself is silent, and the ten-year limitation period inside which a recovery suit must be filed. A tamasuk is conceptually different from a promissory note under the Negotiable Instruments Act 2034 (1977) — the NI Act instrument is a commercial paper that travels by endorsement, while a tamasuk is a household acknowledgment of a fixed debt between two named parties.

This guide explains how a tamasuk is drafted, what makes it enforceable, the difference between a tamasuk and a registered loan deed, the limitation period in Section 484, and the practical court route where the borrower defaults. It is updated for 2026 (2083 BS) and reflects the way money-recovery suits actually run before the District Courts of Nepal.

Alpine Law Associates — trusted by 1,000+ clients across family, corporate, civil, and criminal cases in Nepal.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Our civil law team handles tamasuk recovery suits routinely — for individual lenders chasing a household loan, for small traders who advanced goods on a written acknowledgment, and for inheritors enforcing a deed signed by a deceased person. The recurring pattern is not bad-faith denial of the debt but a tamasuk drafted casually, missing the witness particulars, or sitting unenforced past the Section 484 ten-year horizon. A tightly drafted deed signed in the right form, attested at the ward, and acted on inside the limitation period gives the creditor a clean route to a money decree.

What exactly is a tamasuk under Nepali law?

Under the Muluki Civil Code 2074 a tamasuk is a written deed acknowledging a transaction — most commonly a cash loan from one private party to another, but the same form is used to record advances against goods, working-capital loans inside a small business, or any sum that one person owes to another and intends to repay. The deed is the primary evidence of the debt: in a money-recovery suit the court treats the tamasuk as a written admission by the borrower, and the burden then shifts to the borrower to dispute the signature, the consideration, or the limitation period.

The transaction chapter of the Civil Code recognises several variants, used in older property-secured lending:

• Kapali tamasuk — the plain, unsecured cash-loan deed that most households use. No collateral is pledged; the creditor's remedy is a money decree against the borrower personally.
• Drishti bandhak tamasuk — a deed where land or another asset is shown to the creditor as security but possession is not transferred. Modern bank lending has largely displaced this form, but it still appears in family lending against an ancestral plot.
• Bhog bandhak tamasuk — a usufruct mortgage where possession of the property passes to the creditor, who takes the produce or rent in lieu of interest until the principal is repaid.
• Lakhabandhak tamasuk — a sale-with-right-of-redemption form, historically used to combine a lending and a conditional sale of land.

For most contemporary household loans the relevant form is the kapali tamasuk. Where land is genuinely being mortgaged in 2026, parties almost always go to the Land Revenue Office and execute a registered mortgage deed under the land-registration regime, not a private bandhak tamasuk — the registered route is more enforceable and is recognised by banks and the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

What must a valid tamasuk contain?

The Civil Code does not prescribe a single statutory form for a tamasuk, but the chapter on transactions and the Code's general rules on contract execution together establish a clear minimum. A tamasuk that is missing any of these elements is more easily contested at trial:

• The full identity of both parties — full name, present address and permanent address, father's or husband's name, citizenship certificate number where available. The borrower's identity is the most heavily contested element when a borrower denies executing the deed.
• The principal amount — written in both figures and words, with the currency stated. Discrepancies between figures and words are interpreted against the drafter at trial, so consistency matters.
• The reason for the transaction — even a short phrase ("for medical treatment", "for working capital") helps the court treat the deed as a genuine debt rather than a forced acknowledgment.
• The interest rate, if any — explicit. Silent deeds attract Section 479 (no interest collectible); rate-less deeds (interest mentioned but no rate specified) attract the practitioner-recognised default cap of ten percent per annum on the principal, alongside the Section 481 cap on total accumulated interest at the principal amount.
• The repayment date or schedule — a fixed maturity date, or a schedule of instalments with dates. Open-ended tamasuks are enforceable but raise limitation questions.
• The place and date of execution — both clearly stated, generally on the face of the deed.
• Signatures of the borrower and at least two witnesses — the witnesses signing alongside their full names and addresses. The Civil Code's general rule on contract execution requires every document to be witnessed by at least two witnesses.

The deed is then commonly attested at the ward office of the borrower's local government, which retains one copy and provides a stamp acknowledging the transaction. Ward attestation is not strictly a statutory pre-condition to enforceability but it is the single strongest piece of corroborating evidence in court — confirm with the ward of the borrower's home district before treating any local fee or stamp value as standard, because practice and any local fee vary across the 753 local governments in Nepal.

How does a tamasuk differ from a Negotiable Instruments Act promissory note?

People in Nepal often use "promissory note" and "tamasuk" interchangeably, but the legal instruments are distinct. The Negotiable Instruments Act 2034 (1977), Section 2(f), defines a promissory note as an instrument in writing, other than a government or bank note, containing an unconditional undertaking signed by the maker to pay a certain sum of money to, or to the order of, a certain person, or to the bearer of the instrument. Two technical features follow from that definition: it is unconditional, and it is negotiable — it travels from holder to holder by endorsement.

A tamasuk under the Civil Code is a transaction deed between named parties. It is not designed to be transferred to a third holder; the creditor named on the deed is the person who can sue. A tamasuk also typically records the consideration, records witness particulars, and is executed in a household setting — none of which is part of an NI Act promissory note in commercial use.

In litigation the choice of statute matters. A claim on a tamasuk is filed as a money-recovery suit before the District Court under the Civil Code transaction chapter, and the limitation is governed by Section 484. A claim on an NI Act promissory note is governed by the NI Act's own provisions on presentment, dishonour, and the holder's rights. The forms look similar on paper, but the legal architecture, the evidence rules, and the remedies are different.

How long does a creditor have to recover under a tamasuk?

This is the question that decides most stale tamasuk cases. Section 484 of the Civil Code 2074 fixes the period of a household-executed deed at ten years. If the creditor takes no enforcement step in those ten years, the suit is dismissed as time-barred when filed.

The clock does, however, reset under Section 484 in two situations:

1. If the borrower repays any portion of the principal or interest inside the ten-year window, a fresh ten-year period runs from the date of that part-payment.
2. If the parties extend the term of the deed inside the ten-year window — for example by writing a short addendum confirming the principal, recording a new repayment date, and re-signing in front of witnesses — a fresh ten-year period runs from the date of the extension.

The practical implication is simple. A creditor who is willing to accept a delayed repayment should obtain at least a part-payment receipt or a written extension before the ten years expire. A creditor who allows the deed to sit untouched for a decade has no civil remedy left, regardless of how strong the original document was.

Where the borrower has property and the case escalates beyond a personal money decree — for example because the borrower is a defaulting business — the creditor may have parallel routes through the secured-lending and insolvency framework. Our note on the Debt Recovery Tribunal in Nepal covers the bank-creditor route and the broader debt-recovery architecture; for purely private tamasuk recovery the District Court remains the proper forum.

What does the recovery process look like in court?

Where the borrower defaults and informal recovery has failed, the standard sequence is:

1. Demand notice — a formal written demand from the creditor or counsel referencing the tamasuk, the unpaid amount, and a fixed cure period. This is not statutorily mandatory in every case but is good practice and helps establish the cause of action.
2. Plaint at the District Court — the creditor files a money-recovery plaint at the District Court of the borrower's home district, attaching the original tamasuk, the witness particulars, and proof of any part-payments. The court fee is paid on the principal claimed in line with the Court Fees Act schedule.
3. Summons and written statement — the court issues summons; the borrower files a written statement that ordinarily either denies the deed, disputes the consideration, or pleads limitation.
4. Evidence — examination of the witnesses on the deed, signature comparison if the borrower disputes execution, and any documentary evidence of part-payments.
5. Decree and execution — on a successful suit the court issues a money decree which the creditor may execute through attachment and auction of the borrower's property under the standard execution rules.

The single most common defence we see is a limitation plea under Section 484. The single most common drafting failure we see in deeds presented to us by creditors is missing or unverifiable witness particulars — a tamasuk with two witnesses whose addresses cannot be located is a weaker tamasuk in evidence. Both are preventable at the drafting stage.

Stamp duty, ward attestation and registration

Stamp-duty practice for private tamasuks varies across Nepal. Federal stamp duty applies to certain registered instruments under the Stamp Duty Act, but ordinary household tamasuks are generally executed on plain paper and attested at the ward office, with any local stamp or attestation fee determined by the local government. Where land is being pledged, however, the parties step out of the Civil Code transaction chapter and into the registered-deed regime at the Land Revenue Office, which carries its own registration fee and stamp duty schedule.

Confirm the current local position with the ward office of execution before treating any specific stamp value as definitive — fees change, and the receiving office is the authoritative source. The point of this paragraph is the principle, not a specific rupee amount: a private kapali tamasuk does not require Land Revenue Office registration, but ward attestation strengthens it; a property-secured tamasuk should be replaced by a registered mortgage deed at the Land Revenue Office for genuine enforceability against the property.

For broader context on civil litigation timelines, the court fee schedule, and execution practice, see our overview of civil law in Nepal.

When does a tamasuk go wrong?

The patterns that lose tamasuk cases at trial are largely drafting and discipline failures, not bad law:

• No interest stated where interest was actually agreed orally — Section 479 closes the door on any interest claim, leaving the creditor with the bare principal.
• Witness particulars missing or wrong — addresses that cannot be verified, witnesses who later disclaim knowledge of the transaction.
• Borrower's identity insufficiently captured — only a first name, no address, no citizenship reference.
• Tamasuk sat too long — past the ten-year window of Section 484 with no part-payment and no extension on record.
• Lost original — the creditor is suing on a photocopy because the original was misplaced. A timely report of loss to the ward and the local police, and a contemporaneous record of the witnesses, sometimes saves the case but is never the equal of the original.
• Signature dispute — the borrower denies execution and the creditor has no reliable signature comparison material. Bank-account specimen signatures, prior contracts and citizenship-certificate signatures often resolve this if produced early.

Each of these is preventable at the drafting stage with five minutes of attention to the form. A tamasuk worth lending money against is worth drafting properly.

Tamasuk vs registered mortgage deed — when to step up

For sums beyond modest household lending, or where the borrower offers land as security, a private tamasuk — even a property-secured drishti bandhak tamasuk — is not the right instrument. The right instrument is a registered mortgage deed executed at the Land Revenue Office under the land-registration regime. The differences matter at enforcement time:

• Priority over later transferees. A registered mortgage deed runs with the land. A subsequent purchaser takes subject to the registered charge; a third-party purchaser of land "secured" only by a private tamasuk takes free of the alleged security.
• Forum and remedy. A registered mortgage can be enforced through the sale of the charged property as the primary remedy. A tamasuk can only deliver a personal money decree against the borrower, which then has to be executed against whatever attachable assets exist.
• Bank recognition. No bank or financial institution recognises a private property-secured tamasuk as a charge against the property. Registered mortgages are the only security interests recognised by the banking system and by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
• Stamp and registration cost. Registered mortgages carry stamp duty and registration fees set under the Stamp Duty Act and Land Revenue Office schedule; private tamasuks have negligible cost. The trade-off is enforcement strength.

Rule of thumb: any loan above modest household scale, and any loan where land is the substantive security, should be executed as a registered mortgage at the Land Revenue Office — not as a tamasuk. See our Debt Recovery Tribunal guide for the secured-credit enforcement architecture.

How can Alpine Law Associates help?

Alpine Law Associates handles every stage of tamasuk work — drafting tightly-formed kapali tamasuks that survive in court, advising on the right instrument where property is involved (typically a registered mortgage rather than a bandhak tamasuk), running demand and recovery correspondence, filing money-recovery plaints at the District Court, defending borrowers wrongly sued on a forged or time-barred deed, and executing money decrees through attachment and auction. Our civil-law team is registered with the Nepal Bar Council and works the full path from drafting to decree execution. For broader civil-law work see our civil-law practice area page; as a full-service law firm in Nepal we coordinate tamasuk recovery alongside related family- and corporate-law workstreams in a single counsel relationship.

Speak with our lawyers today →

Last reviewed: April 2026