R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. : - Admit. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The appellants challenge the judgment dated 21 -3 -2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 149 of 2005. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has held that document dated 3 -3 -2000 executed between the parties is a mere agreement for sale without any understanding for delivery of possession prior to the execution of the sale deed and that, therefore, the same cannot be considered as conveyance within the meaning of the said expression under Explanation 1 of Article 25, Schedule -I of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred as "the said Act").

3. The facts relevant for the decision are that the respondents herein have filed Special Civil Suit No. 9 of 2003 against the appellants for specific performance of an agreement stated to have been entered into between the respondents and the predecessor of the appellants in relation to the property bearing survey No. 88/1 situated at mouza Lohara, tahsil and district Yavatmal. The agreement is stated to have been executed on 3 -3 -2000. In the course of recording of evidence, while attempting to establish the case of the respondents in relation to the alleged agreement, the respondents sought to produce the document dated 3 -3 -2000 on record which was objected to by the appellants on the ground that the agreement, in spite of being a conveyance in terms of Explanation -I of Article 25, Schedule -I of the said Act, has not been properly stamped, and therefore, it cannot be admitted in evidence and therefore it cannot be exhibited.

4. It was the contention of the appellants that the document clearly discloses an agreement for delivery of possession in terms of the said agreement for sale of the property, and therefore, it was required to be stamped in accordance with the provisions of law comprised under Explanation -I to Article 25 of Schedule -I of the said Act. The trial Court upheld the objection raised on behalf of the appellants holding that the document in question is an agreement for sale and it clearly mentions the possession to have been agreed to be delivered on the date of the sale of the property, and therefore, it could not have been scribed on a stamp paper of Rs. 100/ - but it was required to be stamped with the duty payable in terms of the Explanation -I to Article 25 of Schedule -I of the said Act and having not done so, the document is not admissible in evidence. The trial Court by its order dated 30 -11 -2004 therefore, upheld the objection and disallowed the document in evidence. The order was sought to be challenged by way of Writ Petition No. 149 of 2005 and the same was allowed by the impugned judgment.

5. The point which arises for consideration is; whether the document in question discloses an agreement for delivery of possession in terms of agreement for sale and that, therefore, it is a conveyance within the meaning of said expression under Explanation -I to Article 25 of Schedule -I of the said Act?

6. The relevant clause of the agreement of sale dated 3 -3 -2000 reads thus: "~ tft ~ ~ ~ ~/.lIUI"l" >rl1:(f ctl~Utll -q~1 ~¢\I¢\C::;I£l lllif -;r. ~ CR

~. lllif;:f ~ ~iffi~~~fucmt~a]iffim~~$."

Plain reading of the above quoted clause would reveal that the parties had agreed that it would be the obligation of party No.2 to obtain income tax clearance certificate at the time of completion of the sale. It was further agreed that party No.1 would be delivered with the possession of the property on the day of the sale thereof by personally remaining present in loco. It is this later part of the agreement which has led to the dispute in question. As far as the term of the agreement which discloses that the delivery of possession was intended to be given on the day of the sale of the property, there is no dispute between the parties. It is also not in dispute that the expression: "the day of the sale" means the day on w