SUNIL BIBHISHAN MANE AND ANOTHER v. DATTATRAY MAROTIRAO SOLANKE AND ANOTHER
Agreement to Sell Without Immediate Possession: Stamp Duty and Admissibility as Evidence in Specific Performance Suits.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AUG:1352
Decision Date: 09-01-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958; Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958; The Indian Registration Act, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Specific Performance of Contract; Section 49 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908
- Facts: The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the 5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, which allowed an application to impound an agreement to sell dated 23.11.2020. The petitioners argued that the agreement, pertaining to the sale of property without the delivery of possession, did not require registration and therefore should not be impounded. The respondents contended that the agreement was insufficiently stamped and could not be read in evidence without proper stamp duty payment.
- Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, as a writ petition challenging the order of the lower court. The High Court heard the petition with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
- Issue: Whether an unregistered agreement to sell, which specifically states that possession of the property will be handed over only after the execution of the sale deed, requires impounding for insufficient stamp duty, and whether it can be admitted as evidence in a suit for specific performance.
- Holding: The High Court held that the agreement to sell, which explicitly stated that possession would be handed over only after the execution of the sale deed, could not be considered a conveyance and therefore did not require stamp duty. The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the lower court's order to impound the document.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that since the agreement to sell stipulated that possession would be transferred only after the execution of the sale deed, it was not a conveyance as defined under Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Kaladevi Vs. V. R. Somasundaram & Ors. to support the view that an unregistered document can be read in evidence if the agreement of sale specifically records that possession has not been delivered. The Court distinguished the case from Bidyut Sarkar and Another Vs. Kanchilal Pal (Dead) through Lrs. And Another, noting that in the present case, possession was not delivered forthwith, and therefore, no stamp duty was required. The Court concluded that the Trial Court had erred in allowing the application for impounding.
🔒 For Members Only