This appeal of the plaintiff is directed against the appellate judgment and decree passed by the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj modifying the judg­ment and decree of the Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj in Title Suit No. 88 of 1979.

2. The case of the appellant/plaintiff before the trial Court was that the defendant No. 1, on receipt of a sum of Rs. 3,000/-, executed a 'Swaranlipi' on 10.4. 78 agreeing to transfer his jote right in respect of 4 bighas of land referred to as "suit land" after final Khatian was issued in his favour and delivered possession of the same forthwith to the plaintiff. Thereafter though final Khatian was issued in his favour he did not execute the sale deed in terms of agreement of sale. On the other hand, he executed a sale deed in favour of the defendant No. 2 in respect of a part of the said land measuring 2 bighas out of 4 bighas agreed to be sold to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a suit for direction to the defendant No. 1 to execute a registered sale deed in respect of jote right over the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, confirmation of plaintiff's possession over the same and issue of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interferring with the possession of the plaintiff. The suit was contested by both the defendants. The learned trial Court, Munsiff, Karimganj, held the transfer of 2 bighas of the land by the defendant No.l to defendant No. 2 as violative of section 8 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, on the ground that the defendant 2 being a "tailor" and he having admitted in cross examination that he did not cultivate the land himself, could not be termed as an agriculturist. The trial Court also held that there was a valid agreement executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit land to him and accordingly, decreed the suit and directed the defendant No. 1 to execute the sale deed of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff within 30 days from the date of order. On appeal, the learned Assistant District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court to the effect that the defendant No. 2 was not an agriculturist. It was observed that though the defendant No.2 had a tailoring shop, he had also agricultural land. The learned appellate Court, therefore, held that the fact of running a tailoring shop by itself did not in any way mitigate against the claim of the defendant No. 2 that he was an agriculturist. An agriculturist might also run a side business and running of such business does not make him a non-agriculturist, if he is otherwise an "agriculturist" within the definition of "agriculturist" contained in the Act. The learned appellate Court also held that there was no evidence to justify a conclusion that the defendant No. 2 had any knowledge of the agreement to sell the suit land between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learned first appellate Court held the sale of a part of the suit land by the defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 2 as sale to an agriculturist is in conformity with the requirements of section 8 of the Act. The Court also held that ths purchase of 2 bighas of land by the defendant No. 2, being without any knowlege of any prior agreement of sale, was a valid sale which remained unaffected by the same. The learned appellate Court, therefore modified the decree of the trial Coart and directed the defendant No. 1 to execute a sale deed in respect of the balance 2 bighas of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. It was also declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1500/-as compensation for his failure to execute the sale deed in respect of the balance 2 bighas of land. The plaintiff is in second appeal before this Court against this appellate judgment.

3. The first question of law that arises for consideration is whether the sale in question by the defendant No 1 to defendant No 2 was hit by section 8 of the A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document