Bombay High Court
DATTATRAY MARUTI GIRMKAR AND ANRversusABHIJIT SUDARSHAN PANSARE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The earnest note does not contain a stipulation of delivery of possession; therefore Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 does not apply and the application to impound the note is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, Dattatray Maruti Girmkar and others, filed a writ petition seeking to have an earnest note executed by the respondents impounded under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. They argued that the note should be covered by the provision because it allegedly involved a stipulation regarding delivery of possession of the property. The Civil Judge, Indapur, rejected the application, holding that Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I of the Act was not triggered as the note contained no such stipulation. On appeal, the High Court examined the earnest note and concurred that it lacked any clause about possession being transferred before, at, or after execution. Consequently, the Court found no error in the lower court’s decision and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the earnest note falls within the ambit of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, by virtue of Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I concerning delivery of possession.
- Whether the Civil Judge erred in rejecting the application to impound the earnest note.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 — s. Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I, Section 33
Subjects
- earnest note
- impoundment
- Maharashtra Stamp Act
- Section 33
- possession
- civil judge
- writ petition
- property law
- stamp duty
Judgment
33-WP-11781-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11781 OF 2026
Dattatray Maruti Girmkar & anr. ..Petitioners
Versus
Abhijit Sudarshan Pansare & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Bhalchandra Shinde, for the Petitioners.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
SAINATH
SANJAY
BODKHE
Digitally signed
by SAINATH
P.C.:
SANJAY BODKHE
Date: 2026.10.01
17:51:55 +0530
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 14 th July,
2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Indapur whereby an
application preferred by the petitioners/defendants to impound
the earnest note purportedly executed by the defendants in
favour of the plaintiffs, came to be rejected.
3. Mr. Shinde, the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that though there is no stipulation in the earnest
note as to the delivery of possession or the promise to deliver
possession at the time of the execution of conveyance, yet, the
earnest note was required to be impounded under the provisions
SAINATH, PA 1/2
33-WP-11781-2026.DOC
of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“the Act,
1958”).
4. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that, the
provisions contained in Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I
of the Act, 1958 were not attracted as there was no stipulation
regarding the delivery of possession.
5. The view of the learned Civil Judge appears to be correct.
6. I have perused the earnest note. There is no stipulation
regarding the delivery of possession of the subject premises in
presenti or at the time of the conveyance. The essential
ingredient of the Explanation I to Article 25 as to the delivery of
possession, namely, that the possession of the immovable
property is transferred or agreed to be transferred to the
purchaser before the execution, or at the time of execution, or
after the execution of the agreement, does not seem to have
been borne out by the earnest note in question.
7. Thus, the learned Civil Judge cannot be said to have
committed any error in rejecting the application. No interference
is warranted with the impugned order.
8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH, PA 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.