JUDGMENT :

S.M. MODAK, J.

1. Plaintiff is vendor/owner of the suit property whereas defendants are the purchasers. They are in possession of the suit property. Plaintiff's suit for recovery of possession was decreed by the trial court. There were the issue of defendants in possession towards part performance and whether the agreement for sale had become unenforceable (on account of non-compliance of the provisions of Income Tax Act from the side of vendor). The issue of the part performance was answered in favour of the defendants. But the suit was decreed by the trial court as the agreement for sale has become non-enforceable. When the defendants preferred first appeal, the findings on part performance (in favour of defendants) were confirmed. The first appellate court come reversed the findings on “whether the agreement had become non-enforceable” and hence, the suit cannot be dismissed. Now, this second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. It was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether the appellate Court was justified in extending the protection of