TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) IN a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, the plaintiffs-appellants herein rely upon an unstamped agreement executed between them and the defendants. The document allegedly executed on 24-8-1998 inter alia stipulates that the possession of the property covered by the same has been transferred to the plaintiffs. That appears to be the version of the plaintiffs also as according to them, the possession of the entire property covered by the agreement of sale stands transferred to them by the defendants-vendors thereof. What is significant is that the document was executed after the amendment to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, whereby an agreement relating to sale of immovable property wherein possession of the property is delivered or is agreed to be delivered, would attract the same stamp duty as is payable on a conveyance at No. 20 of the schedule on the market value of the property. It follows that the agreement to sell relied upon by the plaintiffs-appellants was required to be stamped in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 (e) as amended r/w Article 20 of the Stamp Act. The agreement to sell does not however bear any stamp whatso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document