JUGALKISHORE JIWANDAS ARORA Vs. SUNIL VINAYAKRAO KOKAJE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the controversy involved in the matter, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of parties.

(2.) Advocate Jetha, for petitioner -plaintiff contends that in the civil suit for specific performance filed on the basis of agreement of sale, the Court has passed an order below Exh. 22 on 05-04-2006 and had impounded the agreement treating it as conveyance under article 25 of the Bombay Stamp Act. He argues that the document no where contemplated delivery of possession either at the time of execution of agreement or before execution of that agreement or after execution of that agreement. He further states that delivery of possession as contemplated is only at the time of registration and execution of the sale deed. According to him. Article 25 have been wrongly applied.

(3.) Advocate Khandewale, appearing for respondents, states that Article 25 has been rightly invoked and applied. He invites attention to Clause (i) of Article 25 to point out that whenever possession is agreed to be delivered by agreement, the agreement is conveyance as contemplated under Article 25 is bound to apply. He also relies upon the judgment reported as (2004 (3) Mh. LJ. 357 : [2004 (2) ALL MR 880]) Sheshrao Kale Vs. Damodar Pandhare.