( 1 ) SHOULD the appellants be granted or not the decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell, dated 8-12-1977 (Exh. 71), in respect of a land bearing Survey No. 354/2, situated in Gondal, Rajkot District which is an agricultural land, admeasuring about 7 acres, is the central theme of the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE appellants are the original plaintiffs who initiated legal battle, by filing special Civil Suit No. 76 of 1978, in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.), Gondal, for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement to sell (Exh. 71), and in the alternative claimed a decree for Rs. 1,00,000. 00, by way of compensation or damages, for breach of the agreement, including refund of Rs. 15,000. 00, paid by them as earnest money against the respondents, who are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 5.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 to 4 filed their written statement, at Exh. 16, inter alia, contending that, they are impleaded, unnecessarily, only on the ground that they are office-bearers of the original defendant No. 1-Society. Defendant No. 5 - Firm filed its written statement, at Exh. 19, raising various contentions. It also adopted the written statement, Exh. 18 of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. In short, all the defendants raised a common contention that, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for specific performance.

( 4 ) THE trial Court raised the issues at Exh. 45, in the light of the pleadings of the parties and the facts and circumstances emerging from the record and on appreciation, and assessment of the evidence, the trial Court refused the decree for specific performance. However, the trial Court granted decree against the original defendant No. 1-Society, for an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the suit till payment. The judgment was recorded on 27th April 1983.

( 5 ) BEING dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and decree, the original plaintiffs have, now, come up, before this Court, by way of this First Appeal, under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code ). The respondent no. 1, original defendant No. 1-Society has also filed cross-objections against the passing of the decree for an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00. Thus, the entire impugned decree is under challenge, by both the parties.

( 6 ) THE trial Court has, while passing the impugned judgment and decree, held, that : (i) The defendants have committed breach of the contract. (ii) The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract. (iii) The plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant No. 1-Society illegally, sold away the suit property along with possession to the defendant No. 5-Firm. (iv) The plaintiffs have failed to show that sale transaction in favour of the original defendant No. 5 is not binding to them. (v) The suit is not barred for mis-joinder of the parties. (vi) The plaintiff No. 1 out of three plaintiffs was the only agriculturist. (vii) The plaintiff No. 1 has not committed any breach of the agreement as contended by the defendants. (viii) The plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 10,000. 00 by way of damages and return of Rs. 15,000. 00, the amount, paid as earnest money by them. (ix) The defendant No. 5-Firm is a bona fide purchaser with value without notice. (x) The suit agreement was for the purchase of non-agricultural land. (xi) The permission for conversion into non-agricultural land out of agricultural suit land was refused by the competent authority which has resulted into frustration of the agreement. (xii) The plaintiffs are not entitled to a decree for specific performance of the suit agreement. (xiii) The suit is not barred by the provisions of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act.

( 7 ) IT could very well be seen from the aforesaid findings that the trial Court denied the relief to pass a decree for specific performance of the suit agreement, on the ground of frustration of the contract a