1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Oak, learned counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 5.

2. By this Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 22nd August 2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, below “Exhibit-230” in Special Civil Suit No.324 of 2008.

3. The application at “Exhibit-230” was filed by the present Petitioners for impounding of the document, namely, the 'Memorandum of Understanding' dated 20th June 2011, relied upon by the Respondents on the ground that, the said document is not registered and, therefore, the bar of Section 49 of the Registration Act is attracted and, secondly, also on the ground that, in order to fix the valuation, the document needs to be sent for impounding, under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, for payment of proper stamp-duty.

4. The application was resisted by Respondent No.5 contending, inter alia, that, by the said 'Memorandum of Understanding', (for short, “MOU”), the parties have agreed only on certain terms and conditions, upon which the plot of land was to be given on lease in future and no present right, title, interest or possession was to be passed on. As per the contents of the MOU, only after fulfilling the terms and conditions mentioned therein, the lease was to be executed and, that too, after receipt of permission for transfer of lease from the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, (for short, “CIDCO”). Therefore, it was submitted that, the said document, in any case, can never confer or convey any title in favour of Respondent No.5, so as to pay the stamp-duty, or, for such document to be registered.

5. It was further submitted that, the plot of land in question is the leasehold property, of which the CIDCO is the owner, and leasehold rights can be transferred, only with the permission of the CIDCO and without such permission, no right, title, interest can be conveyed to anyone. Thus, it was submitted that, only upon execution of the Tripartite Agreement, the plot was to be conveyed and not by virtue of MOU. Hence, neither the MOU is required to be registered, nor it is required to pay stamp-duty on the market value of the property.

6. The Trial Court, after considering the submissions advanced at bar, was pleased to hold that, the document is not required to be compulsorily registered, as per Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, and it also cannot be called as 'Deemed Conveyance', for which stampduty is required to be paid, as per 'Explanation' to Section 25 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The Trial Court has, accordingly, rejected the said application.

7. While challenging the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioners is that, the contents of the MOU clearly go to show that the leasehold right, title and interest in the suit plot were agreed to be handed over under this MOU to Respondent No.5 for a consideration of Rs.3,44,00,000/-. In Clause No.4 of the said MOU, it was clearly stated that, hereafter 'Vendor' has no right, title or interest in the said plot and possession thereof was also handed over to the 'Vendee' and, accordingly, the necessary document will also be executed. It is further stated that, Vendor's rights in the said plot are now ceased. In view of these recitals in the MOU, according to learned counsel for the Petitioners, the MOU clearly attracts the 'Explanation' to Section 25 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, and hence, Respondent No.5 should have paid the proper stamp-duty thereon, as per the market-value of the plot.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents submits that, by the 'Memorandum of Understanding', only the leasehold rights are agreed to be transferred and the Tripartite Agreement is only for tran