ORDER S.K. Seth, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail the validity of the interlocutory order dated 6.10.2010 passed by the Trial Judge in a suit for specific performance of the agreement. By the order impugned, learned Trial Judge has rejected the objection of the petitioner as to the admissibility of the agreement of sale dated 1.9.1999 pertaining to the immovable property, which is subject matter of the suit. 2. Respondent No. 1 initially filed the suit for specific performance of the contract based upon the agreement dated 1.9.1999 against petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, petitioner executed sale-deed in favour of other respondents, therefore, plaint was amended and other respondents were impleaded as defendants in the suit. Plaintiff also amended the relief clause and sought a declaration that the sale-deed executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 7 docs not confer any right, title and interest in the suit property being null and void. 3. Petitioner contested the suit by denying execution of the agreement of sale. He further stated in the written statement that the property in question was sold to respondent Nos. 2 to 7 by a registered sale-deed coupled with the delivery of possession. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for a decree for specific performance or a declaration that the sale-deed was void. 4. On the basis of pleadings, learned trial Judge framed the issues and set down the case for recording evidence of the parties. 5. Application under section 35 of the Stamp Act was filed by the petitioner claiming that the agreement dated 1.9.1999 was not properly stamped and, therefore, it was not admissible in evidence for any purpose. Applications were opposed by the respondent No. 1 and after hearing rival submissions and considering material available on record, learned trial Judge by the order impugned overruled objection holding that the agreement of sale was duly stamped which was payable on the date of its execution as per the provisions of the Stamp Act. Hence, this writ petition, as stated hereinabove. 6. We have heard Shri Sameer Athawle, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the documents filed along with the writ petition. 7. Hence, this writ petition, as stated hereinabove. 6. We have heard Shri Sameer Athawle, learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also perused the documents filed along with the writ petition. 7. Shri Athawale, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the documents in question was chargeable to stamp duty as per Article 23 of the Stamp Act. According to him, it was a 'convenyance' evidencing complete sale notwithstanding its compulsory registration as is required under the Registration Act. He submitted that the agreement of sale coupled with the delivery of possession, the transaction was in substance was a 'sale" and the stamp duty payable in respect of such an instrument is prescribed by Article 23 of the Stamp Act. He contended that since the agreement of sale was on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/-, it was inadmissible in evidence and as such, learned trial Judge acted illegally while rejecting the objection raised by the petitioner. Thus according to him, the order impugned is unsustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 8. We are not impressed by the submission of Shri Athawale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 2 (10) of the Stamp Act defines 'convenyance'. Perusal of the said definition clearly indicates that there are two broad divisions contained in this inclusive definition of 'convenyance' namely :- (1) "convenyance of sale"; and (ii) "other instruments". The "convenyance of sale" has not been defined in the Act, but one can safely say that it includes "every instrument and every decree or order of any Court or of any Commissioner, whereby any property or any estate or interest in any property on the sale thereof is transferred to or vested in a purchaser or any other person on his behalf or by his direction". 'Sale' is defined in section' 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to the definition, 'sale' is a transfer of ownership for a price. In a 'sale' there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the property sold. No rights are left in the transferor. Section 54 of the transfer of property Act further postulates only two modes of transfer by 'sale' and these are -- (i) registered instrument; and (ii) delivery of possession. The first overlaps the second, for a transfer in all cases may made by a registered instrument. No rights are left in the transferor. Section 54 of the transfer of property Act further postulates only two modes of transfer by 'sale' and these are -- (i) registered instrument; and (ii) delivery of possession. The first overlaps the second, for a transfer in all cases may made by a registered instrument. It is only in the case of tangible movable property of value of less than Rs. 100/- that the section allows simpler alternative of delivery of possession. No other mode of transfer is contemplated or recognised. The property does not pass, in other words, the ownership is not transferred unless registration is effected. If the deed is not registered, there is no transfer and the property does not pass. All these go to show that a sale is not complete in India unless the instrument is properly stamped and registered. A sale of immovable property differs from a contract of sale of immovable property. A contract for sale is merely a document creating a right to obtain another document, namely a registered sale-deed to complete the transaction of sale of a immovable property. 9. So far as stamp duty on agreement of sale is concerned, Stamp Act prior to its amendment by Local Act, required that such an agreement should be on a stamp paper of Rs. 50/- by virtue of Article 5 of the Stamp Act. It is undisputed that in the present case, the possession was already with the plaintiff prior to execution of the agreement of sale. It is nobody's case that possession was delivered along with the agreement of sale. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find that learned counsel for the petitioner is not right in submitting that there was a complete sale evidenced by document (i.e. agreement of sale) requiring stamp duty on market value. Learned Trial Judge has rightly rejected objection raised by the petitioner with regard to admissibility of the document in the suit. Thus, we find no merit and substance in the writ petition. 11. Writ petition is, therefore, dismissed summarily without any order as to costs. 12. Ordered accordingly.