(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 6507 OF 2009 Vijay s/o. Bhika Bhavsar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. 80, Arti Colony, Behind Kisan Pipe, Deopur, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Petitioner. versus Ushabai w/o. Ashok Kadhare, Age : 37 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Plot No.75, Wagh Nagar, Near Khanderao Police Society, Chitod Road, Dhule, Taluka & District : Dhule. .. Respondent. .......................... Mr. S.I. Nandode, Advocate, for the petitioner. Respondent served (Absent). .......................... (2) CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Inspite of being duly served with notice for final disposal, none appears for the respondent. Hence, the petition is taken up for final hearing in view of the notice issued by this court. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 24th June 2009, passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhule, below Exhibit 18 in Special Civil Suit No. 160/2008, thereby allowing the application filed by the respondent defendant for impounding the agreement of sale dated 27th December 2007. 4. The petitioner has filed a suit for specific performance on the basis of one Sauda Pawati executed between him and the respondent defendant on 27th December 2007. In the said suit, an application came to be filed by the defendant for impounding the said Sauda Pawati on the ground that its value is Rs. 6,00,000/-. The said application is allowed. Hence, the present petition. 5. Perusal of Explanation-1 to Article 25 of Schedule-I of the (3) Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, would reveal that if the agreement provides for delivery of possession at the time of execution of such an agreement or at any time prior to the sale deed being executed, then such document has to be treated as "conveyance" and stamp duty, as required for "conveyance" has to be paid. 6. In the present case, it can be seen from the said agreement, that it is specifically agreed between the parties, that the possession would be delivered on execution of sale deed. It can thus be seen that such an agreement cannot be termed as "conveyance" within the meaning of Explanation-1 to Article 25 of Schedule-I of the said Act. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Division Bench of this court, in the case of Balawantgir Ganpatgir Giri through his L.Rs. Nanibai wd/o. Balwant Giri and others Vs. Manasi Construction and Developers and others (2006(5) Mh.L.J. 306). In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. 7. Hence, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". There shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp6507