DHANIRAM KESHARWANI Vs. MAHESH PATARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Shri Anurag Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. None for the respondent though served and represented. This petition is directed against an order dated 23.12.2006 by 2nd Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 15A/2005 between the parties by which the application filed by the petitioner for impounding agreement, in question, being insufficiently stamped, was rejected.

(2.) LEARNED , counsel for the petitioner submitted that under clause 23 of schedule 1 -A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as was applicable on the date of agreement i.e. 10.05.1998, the stamp duty on the agreement was payable as (sic) conveyance but the agreement was executed on a stamp of Rs. 50/ - which was insufficiently stamped and was liable to be impounded. He referred explanation 2 of clause 23 of Schedule 1 -A of the Stamp Act. In support of is contention, he has also placed reliance to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.A. No. 548/2006 [Ashok Kumar Marwaha vs. Gurupal Singh and others] dated 24.07.2007.

(3.) FROM the perusal of the aforesaid, it is apparent that to treat a document as conveyance in the case of agreement to sell of immovable property, transfer of possession, of immovable property under the agreement to the purchaser before execution or after execution of such agreement is an essential ingredient.