The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 168-A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act in the context of a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13. 9. 1988 passed in Civil Appeal No. 434 of 1987 passed by VIII Additional District Judge, Azamgarh. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondent Jagat Narain singh filed. Suit No. 145 of 1986 for specific performance of contract of sale for decree directing the appellants to execute the sale deed of l/6th portion of the disputed agricultural land plots" nos. 141 and 533 in favour of the plaintiff on payment of Rs. 3, ,000/- as balance of sale consideration. There is a very little dispute regarding the facts of the case. Appellant no. 1 Nandan Singh who has since died was the owner of the said plots. He agreed to sell the same for Rs. 48,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and appellants 2 to 6. A registered agreement to sale was executed on 19. 10. 1983 and a sum of Rs. 30,000/- was paid at the time of the agreement and it was agreed that balance amount of Rs. 18,000/-shall be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed. It is alleged by the plaintiff that out of Rs. 30,000/- he paid Rs. 5,000/- of his share and Rs. 25,000/- was paid by the appellants 2 to 6.

( 3 ) THE further allegation is that after this agreement the appellant No. 1 executed a sale deed of the entire land in favour of appellants 2 to 6 on 25. 11. 1985. That the plaintiff could not know regarding that sale deed. That the plaintiff is ready and willing to purchase l/6th share of the property on payment of Rs. 3. 000/- being his share of the balance sale consideration of Rs. 18,000/ -. That he asked the appellants to execute the sale deed but they failed to execute the same, hence the suit was filed.

( 4 ) THE defendants contested the suit. They have not denied the agreement nor has denied that sale deed has been executed by appellant No. l in favour of appellants 2 to 6. The main plea was that the suit is barred by section 168- A of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. That there was no agreement that each of the purchasers will have l/6th share in the property in dispute and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to get the sale deed executed of 1/6th share.

( 5 ) THE trial court framed necessary issues and held that the suit is barred by Section 168-A of U. P. Z. A and LR. Act. That the plaintiff i not entitled to get the sale deed executed of l/6th share of land. The trial court accordingly dismissed the suit. However, the first appellate court has reversed all the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale and a direction has been given to the appellants to execute the sale deed of l/6th share of the aforesaid plot in favour of the respondents. Aggrieved by it the present appeal has been preferred.

( 6 ) I have heard Shri U. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Jagannath singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. This second appeal was admitted on the substantial question Nos. 1 and 5 as mentioned in the memo of appeal which are as follows: "question No. 1. Has the learned Judge committed patent illegality in misinterpreting the provision of Section 168a of Act I, 1951 and the view of this honble Court in the case of Smt. Bhuri v. Balwant Singh and other reported in 1980 A. W. C. 258 and in reversing the finding of the trial court holding that the suit was barred under section 168a of the Act? question No. V : Could suit for specific performance of a contract of sale be decreed without reversing the finding of the trial court that the plaintiff has failed to aver and prove the allegations of willingness and readiness as required under section 16 (c) of the Specific Relief act ? after hearing the learned counsel for the parties i find that no other substantial question of law arise for decision in this appeal except on which it was admitted. FINDINGS substantial question No. 1. It is admitted position that l/6th share of the disputed plots is a fragment according to