Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Mr.R.U.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.I.D.Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent 1/1 and Mr. Abhinandan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 2/1.

2. This second appeal has been filed under Section 100 C.P.C. by the appellant/defendant against the judgment and decree dated 22.1.1986 passed by the Special/Additional District Judge, Sultanpur, allowing the Civil Appeal No. 148/84 filed by the respondent No. 1 against the judgment and decree dated 29.8.1984 passed by the Munsif (North), Sultanpur by means of which the Suit No. 427 of 1981 filed by the respondent No. 1 for specific performance of contract was dismissed.

3. As per the facts in brief, allegedly an agreement for sale dated 24.1.1979 was entered between the appellant (first party) and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (second party) for executing a sale-deed in respect of part of land bearing Plot Nos. 1280 and 1281 situated in Village Manauli, Pargana Musafir Khana, District Sultanpur and a sum of Rs. 2000/- was paid by the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 (purchaser) to the appellant (seller) and the sale-deed was to be executed within two years after necessary correction is got made in the revenue records. The respondent No. 2/Smt. Shivkala was also impleaded as one of the defendant alongwith the appellant in the suit filed by the respondent No. 1.

4. As per the case of respondents in the plaint the appellant wanted to execute a sale-deed of half his share in Plot No. 1280, however he failed to execute the sale-deed despite necessary notices given to him on 25.8.1981 and 23.10.1981, with the result a suit for specific performance was filed by the respondent/plaintiff. It was also pleaded that the respondent/plaintiff was always willing to perform his part of contract. It was alleged in the plaint that correction in the revenue papers regarding Plot No. 1281 has not been made hence the plot No. 1281 was not included in the suit.

5. The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant by filing written statement. He had denied to have executed the agreement for sale. It was pleaded that the plaintiff had obtained his thumb impression by practicing fraud and he had no knowledge of the same. He used to work as Halwaha with the plaintiff and taking advantage of appellant/defendant’s illiteracy and by misusing his influence the respondent No. 1 by playing fraud had allegedly got the said agreement for sale registered, hence the same is not binding on him. It was also pleaded that the suit is liable to abate due to the fact that the notification under Section 4 of U.P.C.H. Act has taken place in the village where the land in dispute exists and no permission under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of U.P.C.H. Act, which was operative at that time, was obtained.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court had framed seven issues in the suit, translation of which is reproduced below :

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale-deed executed of disputed Araji (property) to defendant No. 2 on the basis of the agreement mentioned at the end of the plaint.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 2000/- from defendant No. 2, as alleged in the plaint.

3. Whether the suit is time barred?

4. Whether the plaint is liable to be abated under Section 5(2) of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Act.

5. Whether the suit has been under valued and less Court fee has been paid?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief.

7. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 had entered into an agreement for sale of the land in dispute on 24.1.1979, as alleged in the plaint.”

7. The learned trial Court in its findings has decided the issue No. 3, which relates to the plea of suit being barred by time in negative. The issue No. 4 relating to abatement of the suit under Section 5(2), U.P.C.H. Act, has also been decided in negative. Issue No. 5, relating t