ORDER : The plaintiff filed present writ petition against the order dated 2.2.2017 made in O.S.No.198/2007 directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty to the agreement dated 10.11.2006 as per Article 5(e)(1) as conveyance under Article 20 of the Stamp Act. 2. The plaintiff filed suit for specific performance to enforce the agreement dated 10.8.2006 contending that the defendants have not executed the agreement in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to execute the sale deed within three months, in spite of repeated request made, they failed to execute the sale deed. However, the relevant records standing in the name of the ancestors of the defendants were not mutated in the name of the defendants in time. Therefore, the defendants executed another agreement dated 10.11.2006 extending the time for five more months. In spite of the same, the defendants failed to execute the sale deed. Therefore, filed the suit for specific performance. 3. The defendants denied the plaint averments and contended that the very suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiff filed application for amendment of the plaint restricting the prayer for specific performance of the agreement dated 10.8.2006, in view of the fact that second agreement dated 10.11.2006 was only for extension of time. The same was opposed on the ground that amendment is sought only to avoid the payment of stamp duty on the agreement of sale dated 10.11.2006 and the amendment application was dismissed. The said order was the subject matter of Writ Petition No.34950/2011 before this Court. This Court by an order dated 22.11.2016 directed the trial Court to reconsider the application for amendment. The trial Court by the separate order dated 2.2.2017 allowed the application for amendment. However observed that if any insufficiently stamped agreement of sale produced on record, this Court at liberty to impound the document under Section 34 of the Stamp Act and collect the duty and penalty. 4. Accordingly, the trial Court took the cognizance of the same and proceed to pass the impugned order holding that under the agreement dated 10.11.2006 defendants delivered possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the agreement of sale dated 10.11.2006 is insufficiently stamped as Rs.200/stamp duty is paid and same is impounded under the provisions of Section 34 of the Stamp act. 4. Accordingly, the trial Court took the cognizance of the same and proceed to pass the impugned order holding that under the agreement dated 10.11.2006 defendants delivered possession to the plaintiff. Therefore, the agreement of sale dated 10.11.2006 is insufficiently stamped as Rs.200/stamp duty is paid and same is impounded under the provisions of Section 34 of the Stamp act. Accordingly, directed to pay stamp duty and penalty on the sale consideration on the agreement dated 10.11.2006. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Sri Bapat Sampath Vinayaka, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court impounding the agreement dated 10.11.2006 directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty as contemplated under the provisions of Article 5(e)(1) is erroneous, contrary to the material on record. He would further contended that the second agreement relied upon by the plaintiff was filed for the purpose of extension of time and the suit was filed within three years from the date of the first agreement and second agreement was filed unnecessary. He would further contended that even the trial Court on the same day allowed the application for amendment and possession was delivered only for removal of bushes grown in the disputed property. Therefore, does not amount to deliver the possession and stamp duty need not be paid. He would further contended that relief sought is only on the basis of the first agreement dated 10.8.2006 and not on the basis of the second agreement dated 10.11.2006. Therefore, stamp duty need not be paid. Hence, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the trial Court by allowing the present writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is undisputed fact that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the defendants dated 10.8.2006 and relief sought only in respect of the said agreement. Hence, he sought to quash the impugned order passed by the trial Court by allowing the present writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is undisputed fact that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement with the defendants dated 10.8.2006 and relief sought only in respect of the said agreement. The defendants have raised a specific contention in the written statement at paragraph 6 of the written statement that, ultimately the defendants have once again executed another agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff on 10.11.2006 before the attestors, agreeing to execute a registered sale deed in respect of the plaint schedule property in his favour within five months therefrom, and on the very date of agreement of sale they have delivered physical possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and at the time of the said agreement of sale, the schedule property was unfit for agricultural use and as per the terms of the said agreement of sale, the plaintiff got effected the mutation of the plaint schedule property in favour of the defendants from that of their elders and the plaintiff has developed the plaint schedule property out of huge investment and labour and consequently made it fit for agricultural use. 8. It is also not in dispute that the said agreement is also produced before the Court. Admittedly, the said document recital is clearly depicts that the possession was delivered. The trial Court considering the objections raised by the plaintiff has recorded a specific finding with the recitals of the agreement dated 10.11.2006 discloses that immovable property has been delivered to the plaintiff without registration. Thus, the agreement of sale dated 10.11.2006 is insufficiently stamped as Rs.200/paid and impounded the said document under Section 34 of the Stamp Act. Accordingly, plaintiff has been directed to pay the stamp duty under the said agreement as per Article 5(e)(1) as conveyance under Article 20 of the Stamp Act. 9. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, while allowing the application for amendment has held that, however, if any insufficiently stamped agreement of sale produced on record, the Court is at liberty to impound the document as per Section 34 of the Stamp Act and to collect the duty and penalty. The said order has reached finality and binding on the plaintiff. 10. The said order has reached finality and binding on the plaintiff. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though under the agreement possession was delivered, there is no express recital in the agreement that without executing conveyance, possession is agreed to be delivered. He relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mr.N.SRINIVASA Vs. SRI MURULESH & OTHERS reported in ILR 2014 KAR 4350. It was a case where the recital was that the possession would be delivered after five months would not amount to delivering possession under the agreement. Similarly, the recital that the possession is agreed to be delivered, is not sufficient to attract the liability to pay stamp duty. There should be express recital that “without executing the conveyance” possession is agreed to be delivered. 11. In the present case admittedly there is a specific recital in the agreement dated 10.11.2006 to the effect that possession was delivered. Once possession is delivered under the agreement which is relied upon by the plaintiff, it attracts the stamp duty as contemplated under Article 5(e)(1) of the Stamp Act and it amounts to conveyance. Therefore, the trial Court is justified to pass the impugned order. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order passed by the trial Court impounding the agreement dated 10.11.2006 under the provisions of Section 34 of the Stamp Act directing the plaintiff to pay the stamp duty as contemplated under Article 5(e)(1) as conveyance under Article 20 is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.