In a recent decision by the Bombay High Court, the court reversed an earlier order that required a sale agreement to be held back. This decision was made on January 9, 2026, by Justice Siddheshwar S. Thombre.
Sunil Bibhishan Mane and Sarika More, from Hadoli, Latur, filed a petition against Dattatray Marotirao Solanke and Priya Solanke of Vidya Nagar, Latur. The Mores wanted the court to enforce a sale agreement from November 23, 2020. However, the Solankes argued that the document was not officially recorded and didn't have the right stamps.
The Solankes claimed the sale agreement was on paper that didn't have enough stamps. They said it couldn't be used as proof unless the correct stamp fee was paid. They supported their argument with a Supreme Court decision from 2024.
"The agreement of sale dated 23.11.2020 was executed on a stamp paper of Rs.100/- and is insufficiently stamped."
The Mores' lawyer argued that the agreement was about selling property without actually handing it over. Therefore, it didn't need to be officially recorded. They mentioned a Supreme Court case from 2010 to support their claim.
"The agreement is in respect of sale of property without delivery of possession, and therefore does not require registration."
Justice Thombre reviewed the case and agreed with the Mores. He stated that since the property wasn't handed over, the document wasn't a full transfer and didn't need to be stamped as one.
"The agreement to sell is without delivery of possession and it cannot be treated as a conveyance."
The court allowed the Mores' petition and canceled the earlier order from October 13, 2022, which required the document to be held back. The court also rejected a request from the Solankes' lawyer to delay the effect of this decision.
The court's decision means the sale agreement can be used in the ongoing civil case without needing extra stamp fees. This case highlights the importance of understanding stamp fee requirements in property deals.
