1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.129 OF 2009 Dattu @ Dattatraya s/o Ramchandra Shinde and another .. Appellants Versus Kumar s/o Teumal Lakhawani and others .. Respondents Shri A.N.Nagargoje, Advocate for appellants CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 13th August 2009 PER COURT : 1. This letters patent appeal filed at the instance of appellants takes exception to the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29.4.2009 in Writ Petition 2718 of 2009 dismissing the petition filed by the present appeallants. The appellants filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the rejection of their application by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangamner for impounding the agreement of sale which according to the appellants was a conveyance and not an agreement. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellants has produced before us the copy of the said agreement. The said agreement contemplates possession being delivered on 31.11.1997 on payment of the balance consideration. Shri Nagargoje, learned Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on explanation 1 to Article 25 of Schedule I to the Bombay Stamp Act which reads as under : 2 “ Explanation 1. - For the purpose of this article, where in the case of agreement to sell an immovable property, the possession of any immovable property is transferred to the purchaser before the execution, or at the time of execution, or after the execution of such agreement without executing the conveyance in respect thereof, then such agreement to sell shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be leviable accordingly.” 3. Undisputedly, after execution of the aforesaid agreement, possession was not delivered. In the light of the said fact, the said agreement cannot, in law, be derived as a conveyance. The explanation on which reliance is sought to be placed by the appellants in clear terms contemplates possession being delivered either at the time of execution or prior to it or subsequent thereto without executing a conveyance deed. Since the possession has not been delivered the said agreement would be an agreement and not a conveyance. In the light of that, therefore, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/129.09lpa)