MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI

1. We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

2. The appellant herein has challenged the order dated 13.09.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 1879 of 1984 whereby the learned Single Judge confirmed the judgment of the trial court holding that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench is not applicable looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that one of the plots was in agricultural zone governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for which the Prant Officer had refused to grant permission for sale vide Ex. 87 dated 29.08.1972.2.The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-

2.1 Two plots bearing Nos.236/2 and 234/2 admeasuring 7986 sq. yards are situated in village Bodakdev, Taluka Dascroi, District Ahmedabad. These plots were owned by Parshottam Babarbhai Patel. These plots were undivided joint hindu family property. Defendants Nos.1 to 4 and deceased Parshottamdas Babarbhai Patel executed an agreement to sell in favour of the defendants nos.8 to 12 on 29.11.1971. Twelve months' period was fixed for execution of the sale deed. Thus, the sale deed was to be executed by the defendants nos.1 to 4 and Parshottamdas Babarbhai Patel before 29.11.1972. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement to sell the defendants nos.8 to 12 in turn executed an agreement to sell in favour of the plaintiffs on 23.5.1972 and received Rs.20,000/- as earnest money from the plaintiffs. The time limit for the execution of the sale deed was fixed up to 20.11.1972. Under the terms and conditions of the agreement to sell the defendants were required to produce title clearance and were to obtain necessary permission under Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Another condition in the agreement to sell was that the defendants were to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or any person as desired by the plaintiffs.

2.2 On 17.11.1972 a supplementary agreement was executed by Parshottamdas Babarbhai Patel and the defendants nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendants nos.8 to 12. According to this agreement the time limit for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 3 months after cessation of Gujarat Vacant Land in Urban Areas Prohibition Alienation Act, 1972. Under the terms and conditions of the agreement the defendants were required to produce title clearance and were to obtain necessary permission under Sec. 63 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Another condition in the agreement to sell was that the defendants were to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or any person as desired by the plaintiffs.

2.3 On 17.11.1972 a supplementary agreement was executed by Parshottamdas Babarbhai and the defendants nos.1 to 4 in favour of defendants nos.8 to 12. According to this agreement the time limit for execution of the sale deed was fixed as 3 months after cessation of Gujarat Vacant Land in Urban Areas Prohibition Alienation Act, 1972. Similarly defendants nos.8 to 12 executed agreement in favour of plaintiffs and extended the period for execution of the sale deed to two months after the provisions of the said Act ceased to remain in force vide agreement dated 8.11.1972. The said Act ceased to remain in force with effect from 12.8.1975. In this way, time limit given under the agreement dated 23.5.1972 stood extended up to 12.10.1975.

2.4 Parshottam Babarbhai Patel expired on 26.10.1973. The defendants nos.1 to 4 and 6 and 7 are children of said Parshottam Babarabhai Patel. The defendant no.5 was the widow of Parshottamdas Babarbhai Patel. In this way, according to the plaintiffs the transaction entered into by Parshottamdas Babarbhai Patel is binding upon the defendants nos.1 to 7. After 12.8.1975 when the Gujarat Vacant Land in Urban Areas Prohibition Alienation Act, 1972 ceased to remain in force, the plaintiffs asked the defendants to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs were ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement but the defendant