Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). This second appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court dated 15.11.1976 in Civil Original Suit No.329/1969 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of the contract and against the appellate judgment and decree dated 11.11.1985 in Civil First Appeal No.46/1980 by which the appellate court partly allowed the appeal and though upheld the decree for specific performance of the contract but set aside the decree for possession on the ground that since the land is agricultural, therefore, decree for possession can be granted only by Revenue Court. The respondent- plaintiffs also submitted cross objection against decree as modified by the first appellate court denying the relief of possession in a suit of specific performance of the contract despite decreeing the suit for specific performance of the contract.

(3). Brief facts of the case are that the defendant-appellant agreed to sell the agricultural land bearing Khasra No.558, 559 and 560 having measurements 6 bighas 3 biswas, 6 bighas 16 biswas, 6 bighas 14 biswas. The defendant-appellant also gave neighbourhoo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document