JUDGMENT : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. - Leave granted. 2. The Order dated 02.09.2015 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Civil Revision No. 35/2015 is called in question in this appeal. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the pertinent facts are that an agreement to sell the property in question was entered into by the Appellant (Buyer) and the Respondents (Sellers) on 19.11.1995 for a sum of Rs. 3,05,000/-. A sum of Rs. 85,000/- was paid at the time of agreement. Certain portions of the agreed amount were also paid subsequently and possession was said to have been handed over in favour of the prospective buyer. When the Respondents did not co-operate in getting the sale deed registered, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance based on the agreement of sale. The suit was decreed in favour of the Appellant on 22.09.2004, and the certified copy of the judgment and decree was delivered to the decree holder/Appellant on 19.11.2004. The Trial Court imposed certain conditions therein, which are quoted as under: "(a) The plaintiff shall pay stamp duty and penalty in accordance with Section 2, Schedule 1 A entry number 23 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (MP Amendment) Act 1990 on the agreement dated 19/11/1995 within two months. (b) The plaintiff is directed to pay the balance sale consideration within two months to the respondent no. 2. (c) On Plaintiff's paying stamp duty and penalty as per rules as stated above and on payment of Rs. 65000/- as sale amount to Defendant No.2 he shall be entitled to get the sale deed of the disputed house No. 88 Balkrishna Bapuji Marg Barnagar executed by Defendant No. 2 on behalf of Defendant No.1. (d) In the event of plaintiff not paying stamp duty and penalty regarding the sale agreement (Ex.P2) within two months he will not be entitled to get the decree executed." From the above conditions embedded in the decree, it is clear that:- (a) The Appellant has to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 65,000/- within 2 months. (b) That the decree holder/Appellant shall pay Stamp Duty and Penalty as required under the statue within 2 months, lest the sale deed will not be executed and that the decree holder/Appellant will not be entitled to have the decree executed. 4. We find from the submissions that the condition no. 65,000/- within 2 months. (b) That the decree holder/Appellant shall pay Stamp Duty and Penalty as required under the statue within 2 months, lest the sale deed will not be executed and that the decree holder/Appellant will not be entitled to have the decree executed. 4. We find from the submissions that the condition no. (b) mentioned (supra) regarding payment of balance from sale consideration of RS. 65,000/- was made within two months from the date of decree by the decree holder. Therefore, in our view, no further discussion needs to be made with regard to the same. 5. On condition No.(a) mentioned (supra), learned Advocate for the Appellant contended that the amount of Stamp Duty and Penalty were not quantified by the Trial Court and hence the condition requiring the Appellant to pay the Stamp Duty and Penalty within the period of 2 months could not be complied with; though the appellant has been repeatedly trying to get the payable amount quantified before various for a, the said amount is still not quantified; therefore, no fault lies on the Appellant. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court dismissing the Execution Petition filed by the decree holder/Appellant is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, the Advocate for the Respondent arguing in support of the order of the High Court contended that it is incumbent on the decree holder to pay the Stamp Duty and the Penalty in accordance with Section 2, Schedule 1 (A) entry no. 23 of Indian Stamp Act 1899 (MP Amendment) Act, 1990 on the agreement dated 19.11.1995 within two months. Since the condition imposed in the decree is specific, clear and unambiguous, there cannot be any confusion in the amount payable by the decree holder and thereby failing to fulfil the said condition. Hence, High Court is justified in dismissing the Execution Petition in as much as the decree has become in executable. 7. The condition specified in the decree by the Trial Court was not only to pay the Stamp Duty but also the Penalty so imposed in addendum. De jure, there must be adjudication of the proper Stamp Duty and Penalty payable. It is needless to observe that it was the duty of the Appellant to pay the Stamp Duty in accordance with the provisions mentioned (supra) within two months. De jure, there must be adjudication of the proper Stamp Duty and Penalty payable. It is needless to observe that it was the duty of the Appellant to pay the Stamp Duty in accordance with the provisions mentioned (supra) within two months. However, it appears that the Appellant was confused because of the fact that he was directed to pay the Stamp Duty as well as the Penalty in accordance with the provisions. Since the quantum of the Stamp Duty was not adjudicated and Penalty was not determined as warranted under the provisions contained in Chapters III & IV of the Indian Stamp Act, he remained impassive and lackadaisical in complying with the said mandate. 8. Undisputedly, the Appellant has cleared the entire decreed amount to be paid to the judgment debtors/Respondents. The sale deed therefore should be executed necessarily after the payment of Stamp Duty. The decree holder should have paid, at least the Stamp Duty, as per his calculation based on statutory requirement and ought to have presented the document for registration. Since the Stamp Duty was not paid, the sale deed in effect stood not executed. Be that as it may, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, we find that leniency may be shown in favour of the Appellant by imposing heavy costs and by directing him to present the sale deed for registration by quantifying and paying the Stamp Duty in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (M.P. Amendment) within one month from this date. Thereafter the deficit amount, if any in regard to the Stamp Duty and the Penalty shall be quantified by the concerned court/authorities as per law. On such quantification, the appellant shall pay the deficit Stamp Duty and Penalty so quantified within four weeks thereafter. 9. Under the facts and circumstances, we impose costs of.