1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9219 OF 2009 Balasaheb @ Prakash Bapu Sadole & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Sharad Ramchandra Patil & Ors. .. Respondent ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.9220 OF 2009 Balasaheb @ Prakash Bapu Sadole & Ors. .. Petitioners versus Babasaheb Anna Khot & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Abhijit M. Adagule for the petitioners. Mr.R.S.Apte, Sr.Advocate i/by Mr.Ashutosh Gole for respondent No.1. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 23rd March 2010. P.C.: . These two petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment and order as issues arising in the petitions are more or less identical. The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on 17th March 2010 and the petitions were adjourned for passing orders. 2. For the sake of convenience, a reference has been made to the facts of the case in Writ Petition No.9219 of 2009. The petitioners are 4th and 5th defendants in the suit filed by the 1st respondent. The suit is for specific performance of alleged agreement for sale dated 16th August 1982. An application was made by the present petitioners contending that in view of 2 section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 the agreement will have to be impounded in as much as possession of the immovable property is purported to be handed over under the said agreement before execution of the conveyance. Reliance was placed by the petitioner on Explanation I to Article 25 of the Schedule I to the said Act 1958. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to Explanation I to Article 25 by submitting that if in case of an agreement to sell an immovable property, the possession of immovable property is transferred or agreed to be transferred to the purchaser before execution or at the time of execution or after the execution of such agreement, such agreement shall be deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be levied accordingly. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court was wrong when a finding was recorded that Explanation I to Article 25 was not attracted. He has placed reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs. Mahavir Lalchand Rathod & Anr (1993 Maharashtra Law Journal 492). 4. I have considered the submissions. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not disputed that the objection is based only on Explanation I to Article 25 which was admittedly incorporated in the statute with effect from 10th December 1985. The agreement for sale has been executed prior to the said date. A taxing statute cannot be applied 3 retrospectively. Therefore, the learned Judge of the trial Court was right in holding that Explanation I to Article 25 will not apply. Hence, there is no merit in the petitions and the same are disposed of. (A.S.OKA,J)