gst 1 wp9846.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 9846 OF 2010. Kishore Madhukar Patil ... .... .... ..Petitioner. V/s Smt.Yesubai Pandurang Patil & Ors. .... ... ..Respondents. Mr.P.R.Kadam, Adv. For the petitioner. Mr.S.P.Narvekar, Adv. For R.Nos. 8 to 19. Mr.P.C.Kansara, Adv. For R.Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 13th April, 2011 PC: By way of present petition the petitioner challenges the order dated 7.9.2010 vide which the learned trial Judge rejected the application filed by the present petitioner for impounding the agreement dated 5.12.1994. Learned counsel relies upon a judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sheshrao s/o Bhikaji Kale Vs. Damodhar s/o Kukaji Pandhare, 2004 (2) ALL MR 880. 2. Explanation No.1 to Article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 provides that where in case of agreement of sale of immovable property the possession of any immovable property is transferred or agreed to be transferred then such an agreement of sale has to be deemed to be a conveyance. 3. Inspite of repeated queries with the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any such stipulation in the agreement which is sought to be impounded. In so far as the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Sheshrao s/o Bhikaji Kale (supra) is concerned the same would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case the agreement in question stipulated that possession was handed over and as such gst 2 wp9846.10.sxw the learned trial Court directed impounding of the same. The petitioner plaintiff challenged the said order before the High Court contending therein that though the possession was agreed to be handed over in fact was not handed over and as such document could not have been impounded. In this factual background learned Single Judge found that once there was stipulation in the agreement regarding delivery of possession the agreement was covered by explanation No.1 of Articled 215 of the Stamp Act and that an enquiry under section 34 as to whether the condition in the agreement have been complied with or not, was not permissible. The Court found that refusal or failure to hand over possession as agreed was not germane for the purpose of section 34. 4. In the present case there is no such stipulation in the agreement regarding delivery of possession. 5. In that view of the matter no error could be noticed in the impugned order to warrant interference. Writ petition stands dismissed. Needless to state that interim protection granted earlier stands vacated.