1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4883 OF 2009 1 Jalil Nabisaheb Durugkar 2 Mohammed Ismail Tajjansaheb ...Petitioners vs. 1 Devidas Bhujang Chittampalli & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.M.R.Deshpande for the petitioners Mr.Nitin Mulye for respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 30, 2010 P.C. 1 I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has taken an exception to the order dated 24 th June 2002 passed by the trial Court. The petitioner has sought to tender in evidence a document described as Memorandum of Understanding (receipt dated 31 st March 2000) which was produced along with the list at Exh.29 at item no.1 thereof. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has declined to exhibit the same as the document was required to be impounded. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the document in question is not an agreement for sale but it is merely a receipt which records that an agreement for sale will be executed on a future date. He submitted that a receipt will not attract Article 25 and the explanation I thereof of the Bombay Stamp Act,1958. He, therefore, submitted that the Court below has committed an error by holding that the document is insufficiently stamped. 2 3 I have considered the submissions. I have perused the document. The document purports to record an agreement for sale between the parties in respect of the immoveable property bearing C.T.S. No.5335 admeasuring 81 sq. meter consisting of 5 shops, 13 rooms and a bathroom and a toilet block. The terms and conditions of the sale such as total price agreed have been incorporated in the document. The said document records that the possession of the entire property except 2 rooms will be handed over before execution of the sale deed. Though the document is styled as a receipt, it incorporates all the terms and conditions of an agreement for sale of immoveable property. The said document is typed on a stamp of denomination of Rs.20/-. Thus, the explanation I of Article 25 of the said Act will squarely apply to the said document. The result of the impugned order is that the said document at Exhibit-29/1 stands impounded. The said document can be read in evidence provided compliance is made by the petitioner with the requirements of section 34 of the said Act by paying deficit stamp duty and penalty in accordance with law. 4 Subject to what is observed above, no case for interference is made out. Writ Petition is rejected. 5 It will be open for the petitioner to follow the procedure prescribed by section 34 of the Bombay Stamp Act and to pay requisite deficit stamp duty and penalty in accordance with law. JUDGE 3