U.C.Maheshwari, J.

( 1. ) This appeal is directed by the appellants/plaintiffs under Section 100 of the C.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.01.1994 passed by the Additional District Judge Multai,District Betul in civil regular appeal No.l5-A of 1985 reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.11.1984 passed by Civil Judge Class-I Multai in civil original suit no.90-A of 1994, decreeing the suit of the appellants for specific performance with respect of the agricultural land.

( 2. ) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants herein filed the suit for specific performance against the respondent contending that the respondent entered into an agreement with him on 4.3.1977 to sell his revenue paid land area 2.360 hectares, the part of survey no.72 described in the plaint in consideration of Rs.5,000/-. Out of which Rs.1,200/- was paid in advance at the time of execution of the same, while Rs.1,300/- was paid on 7.4.1977. As per further terms of the agreement, the registered sale deed was to be executed by the respondent after receiving the remaining consideration, up to the festival of Holi 1978. Subsequent to agreement, the appellants remained ready and willing to perform their part of contract but the respondent did not comply his part by executing the registered deed after taking the remaining consideration. On which the impugned suit was filed.

( 3. ) In the written statement of the respondent by denying the averments of the plaint, it is stated that she never entered into the alleged agreement with the appellants to sale her agricultural land. In fact, she being in need of money approached the plaintiffs Ammilal through one Ram Rao Patwari to make available the loan, pursuant to that, she took Rs.2,000/- from such Ammilal on 4.3.1977. As per terms she had to return Rs.2,500/- total to the appellants Ammilal with interest. As per further averments the disputed land was given to the appellants on lease for two years. In such premises, the alleged transaction was only the loan transaction and was not the agreement to sale. However, respondent has admitted her signature on the alleged agreement in the written statement. In such premises the prayer for dismissal of the suit is made.

( 4. ) In view of the pleadings of the parties as many as 7 issues were framed on which the evidence was recorded. On appreciation, the suit of the appellants was decreed by the trial Court. The same was challenged by the respondent before the first appellate Court. On consideration, by allowing the same after setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, the suit of the appellants has been dismissed in its entirety on which the appellants have come forward to this Court with this appeal.

( 5. ) Earlier vide order dated 8.12.1995 this appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of 1aw:-

"Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the appellant is entitled to a decree for specific performance in view of the findings and the admissions made by the respondent ?"

( 6. ) Shri A.B. Khan, learned counsel for the appellants after taking me through the pleadings, evidence and the alleged agreement available on record argued that in the light of admission of the respondent in her written statement regarding execution of the agreement Ex. P./l,the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit of the appellants, but the appellate Court has committed error in dismissing the suit by setting aside such decree holding that the impugned transaction of the agreement was not the agreement to sale between the parties but in fact it was a loan transaction. Such approach of the appellate Court is contrary to record and also the existing legal position. He further said that the appellate Court has also committed error in holding that the respondent did not have any right to enter in the agreement with the appellants to sale any part of the aforesaid survey no. In any case, the respondent being co -Bhoomisw