JUDGMENT

R.P.SETHI, J.

(1) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree passed by the High Court in second appeal, the appellant-defendant has filed this appeal. It is contended that the second appellate court was not justified in holding that section 168A of the .U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was not applicable to the facts of this case. It is submitted that in view of the admission made before the first appellate court, the respondent was estopped from pleading to the contrary, in the second appeal.

(3) AFTER perusal of the record, we find that on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court had framed the following issues:

I) Whether defendant executed any agreement to sell off the disputed land in favour of the plaintiff;

II) Whether the suit is barred by time?

III) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of section 16(C) of the Specific Relief Act?

IV) To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled?

(4) IT is apparent that no issue with respect to the applicability of section 168A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was