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 possession over the land in dispute. The plaint case is that defendants own a land measuring about 400 sq. yard, part of plot No. 16/2-Ka, situate at Naripura, Arga. The boundaries are given at the bottom of plaint. Defendants entered into an agreement for sale on 10.12.1977 with plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- whereagainst Rs. 2,000/- was received by defendants at the time of execution of agreement and Rs. 9,000/- was received by them on 23.5.1978. The sale-deed was to be executed within one month of the written notice, tendered to defendants, by the plaintiff, after obtaining permission for sale from competent authority, Agra. The possession was to be delivered at the time of execution of sale-deed. The plaintiff has been and still ready and willing to perform his part of agreement, but defendants are evading execution of sale-deed. Plaintiff sent a telegram dated 21.9.1981 asking defendants to appear before Sub-Registrar, Agra on 1.10.1981 for execution of sale-deed. The plaintiff remained present on the said date in the office of Sub-Registrar, ready with money, but defendants failed to attend the said Office.

5. The suit was contested by defendant-appellants. A written statement was filed by defendants No. 1 and 2 stating that agreement was entered for sale of their share. Defendant No. 4 had no right, title or interest in the land in suit. Land belong only to defendants No. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Receipt of Rs. 2,000/- was admitted but that of Rs. 9,000/- was denied. Permission of transfer was obtained jointly in the name of plaintiff through a common Advocate Sri Hari Shankar Lavaniya. The defendants were ready to deliver possession of their share to plaintiff at the time of registration, but plaintiff was not agreeable thereto. Plaintiff never asked defendants to get the sale-deed executed and plaint case is founded on incorrect facts.

6. Defendants No. 5, being a minor, contested through his next friend/guardian ad litem and filed a separate written statement. He claimed to have no knowledge about agreement for sale dated 10.12.1977. The other defendants have no right to execute any agreement on behalf of respondent No. 5 and no consideration has been received by him. The averments in general made in plaint were denied and in additional pleas, it was pleaded that defendant No. 4 had no right to enter into agreement for sale on behalf of defendant No. 5 since he being minor at that time, the suit is barred by Section 8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as “HMG Act”) as well as Section 168-A of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act, No. 1 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1950”). In any case, no discretionary relief of specific performance under Section 20 of Specific Relief