ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition is claiming for the following reliefs :- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 12.2.2016 and 25.4.2016 (Annex.7 and 9) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner dated 25.4.2016 may kindly be allowed. (ii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner." 2. Brief facts noticed by this Court are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 4. The suit was pertaining to specific performance of agreement dated 18.2.2000 and also agreement dated 16.1.2000. As per agreement dated 16.1.2000, defendant Usha sold her land to plaintiff-respondent Babu Lal. The petitioner filed an application under section 35 and 39 of the Stamp Act stating that for want of proper stamp duty the agreement in question cannot be allowed to be exhibited, however, the application was rejected by the learned court below on the ground that the possession has not been transferred as the petitioner himself has sought police protection for taking possession over the land in-question. Counsel for the petitioner has shown agreement dated 18.2.2000, in which, para-2 reads as follows :- 2- ;g fd mDr vkjkth;kr dh d`f"k Hkwfe ftlesa esjk 1@4 fgLlk jktLo jsdMZ esa esjs uke ls ntZ gS ekSds ij vki ls gh dCtk fliqnZ dj fn;k gS vkSj vki mlds IykWV dkVs] xzkgdkas dks crk;s] uD'kk cukos] fuekZ.k dk;Z djkos] :ikUrj.k gsrq dk;Zokgh djkos blesa eq>s fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ vkikfRr ugha gS ;kfu dh vki bl tehu dks cspus ls lEcf/kar dksbZ Hkh dk;Z djus gsrq Lora= gSA Counsel for the petitioner states that since passing of possession has been recorded in the aforementioned para of the agreement dated 18.2.2000, therefore, payment of stamp-duty was mandatory. 3. 3. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the same agreement and has shown condition No.6, which reads as follows:- 6- ;g fd mDr d`f"k Hkwfe esjk iw.kZ :i ls dCtk gS rFkk eaS vkidks IykV cspus gsrq bls fliqnZ dj jgk gwWa vki blesa IykV dkVs rFkk csps :i;k izkIr djs] jlhn nsos] :ikUrj.k gsrq pkyku jkf'k tek djkos esjs gLrk{kj dh tgkWa dgha t:jr gks eq>s cqykos rFkk esjs gLrk{kj djokos esjh vksj ls dksbZ vkifRr ugha gksxhA 4. Counsel for the respondent by virtue of this condition wants to show that the possession was in fact passed on a limited right of selling plots. Counsel for the respondent further stated that since actual possession has not been transferred in pursuance of the agreement to sell, therefore, it does not come within the definition of conveyance. Definition of "Conveyance" as provided under Section 2(xi) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 alongwith explanation in Article 21 reads as follows : 2. (xi) "Conveyance" includes (i) A conveyance on sale, (ii) Every instrument, (iii) Every decree or final order of any civil Court, (iv) Every order made by the High Court under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956(1 of 1956) in respect of amalgamation of the companies, (v) Sale of air rights, (vi) Sale/consent related to below surface rights, By which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in, any other person, intervivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for the schedule; 21. Conveyance as defined by Section 2(xi) (i) if relating to immovable property 11% of the market value of the property. (ii) if relating to movable property; 0.5% of the market value of the property. (iii) if relating to amalgamation of companies by the order of the High Court under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act No.1 of 1956). 10% of the market value of the property. Exemption - Assignment of copy right by entry made under the Copy Right Act, 1957 (Act No.14 of 1957). (iii) if relating to amalgamation of companies by the order of the High Court under section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act No.1 of 1956). 10% of the market value of the property. Exemption - Assignment of copy right by entry made under the Copy Right Act, 1957 (Act No.14 of 1957). Explanation - (i) For the purpose of this article an agreement to sell an immovable property or an irrevocable property power of attorney or any other instrument executed in the course of conveyance or lease, e.g. allotment letters, patta, licence etc., shall, in the case of transfer of the possession of such property before, at the time of or after the execution of any such instrument, be deemed to be a conveyance and the stamp duty thereon shall be chargeable accordingly. 5. This Court on perusal of the agreement finds that the transfer of the possession has been recorded in condition no.(2) of the agreement in-question itself, therefore, the document shall fall under the definition of Conveyance as defined under Section 2(xi) of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. Since the transfer to sale was alongwith transfer of possession, therefore, the learned court below ought to have directed the respondents to pay appropriate stamp-duty, which is 11% at this juncture and 10% at the time when the document was executed for exhibiting the document in question. 6. In light of the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.2.2016 and 25.4.2016 (Annex.7 and 9) are quashed and set aside and the learned court below is directed to send the document i.e. the agreement to the competent authority for payment of necessary stamp duty.