Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Waris, Advocate for defendants-appellants and Sri Niraj Agarwal, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1.

2. The defendants-respondents 2, 4 and 5 have died and since their heirs or legal representatives were not brought on record, appeal stood abated against them pursuant to this Court’s order dated 29th April, 2010. The entire appeal had not abated for the reason that decree holder plaintiff-respondent No. 1 is there and cause of action therefore, continues to survive.

3. This is defendants’ appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). After hearing this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 CPC, this Court formulated following two substantial questions of law:

(i) Whether alleged admission by a party is to be taken as a whole?

(ii) Whether Rules regarding Pardanashi lady would apply equally to a ignorant and illiterate woman though she may not be a Pardanashi?

4. The brief facts giving rise to present dispute are as under:

5. The plaintiff-respondent brought an Original Suit No. 97 of 1972 for specific performance of contract in respect to disputed land, which is an agricultural land. The plaint case set up by Sri Daulat Ram, (plaintiff-respondent No. 1) is that, Smt. Deva, (defendant No. 1), was Sirdar and bhumidhar of some plots, details whereof was given in para 1 of the plaint. The aforesaid lady entered into an agreement for sale on 14th September, 1965 with plaintiff for sale of land in dispute for consideration of Rs. 10,000/- whereagainst Rs. 5,000/- was paid in advance. The sale-deed was to be executed in five years after acquiring bhumidhari Sanad in respect of Sirdari land. The plaintiff tendered a notice dated 4.9.1970 to defendant No. 1 requiring her to execute sale-deed, which was replied differently. Defendant No. 1 however executed sale-deed in favour of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. appellants before this Court, who had due knowledge of agreement for sale dated 14.9.1965 but they still proceeded for transaction of sale of disputed land. Defendant No. 1 is bound to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiff and deeds executed between defendant Nos. 2 and 3 is of no consequence and void.

6. Defendant No. 1 contested suit stating that neither she ever agreed to sell the land in dispute to plaintiff nor ever received any amount from him. She also denied execution of agreement for sale dated 14.9.1965. She pleaded that after the death of her husband, one Mahavir Prasad, uncle of plaintiff became her Karkun. However, he was removed. In connection with sale of crop of grove of defendant No. 1 during the period he was looking after agricultural land of the widow, he might have obtained her thumb impressions on some papers and may have got prepared agreement for sale dated 14.9.1965 on the same, but defendant No. 1 herself has not entered into an agreement for sale with plaintiff at any point of time for sale of disputed land.

7. The Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “T.C.”) formulated four issues:

“1. Whether the defendant No. 1 had agreed to sell the land in suit to the plaintiff for Rs. 10,000.00 and had executed the deed of agreement as alleged?

2. Whether the plaintiff had given Rs. 5000.00 by way of advance to the defendant No. 1?

3. Whether the defendant No. 2 is bona fide purchaser for value without notice?

4. To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?”

8. The above issues were answered in favour of defendant No. 1 and consequently the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 25th January, 1974. Thereagainst, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed Civil Appeal No. 100 of 1974 in the Court of Ist Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, which has been allowed by Lower Appellate Court (hereinafter referred to as “L.A.C.”) vide judgment and decree dated 3rd January, 1979 and setting aside T.C.’s decree.

9. The L.A.C., decreeing the suit, had directed defendan