Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Anupam Kulshrestha, Advocate, for appellants and Sri Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.

2. This is defendant’s second appeal. The following substantial questions of law were formulated at the time of hearing this appeal under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.:

(i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the suit was not barred by Section 8 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act?

(ii) Whether Lower Appellate Court has erred in exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act?

(iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit was not barred by Section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?

3. Before considering the aforesaid issues in the light of rival submissions, brief facts, necessary for adjudication of above questions may be stated as under.

4. Plaintiff-respondent, Sri Nathi Lal, instituted Original Suit No. 395 of 1981 in the Court of Civil Judge, Agra for a decree of specific performance to enforce the agreement for sale dated 10.12.1977 for executing registered sale-deed after obtaining permission from competent authority, Agra and to put the plaintiff in posses