1. Plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned two Courts below, denying to grant decree of specific performance of contract.

2. In brief the suit of plaintiff is that the defendant Hiralal entered into an agreement of sale with plaintiff to sell his house, the description whereof is mentioned in para-1 of the plaint and which is the subject matter of the suit for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/- on 12.6.1988. On this date an amount of Rs. 6,000/- was obtained by him as advance money. Further it has been pleaded in paras 2 and 3 of the plaint that by the end of 9th November, 1986, the plaintiff shall pay the entire balance amount or it may be paid in installments. Eventually, on 15.7.1986, 22.8.1986 and on 5.10.1986, the plaintiff paid sum of Rs. 1000/-, 1000/- and Rs. 2000/- respectively to the defendant. Thus, out of entire consideration of Rs. 12,000/- he had already paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to him and only an amount of Rs. 2000/- is required to be paid.

3. Further the case of the plaintiff is that he was always ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- to defendant and even today (on the date of the filing of the suit) he is ready to pay the said balance amount of Rs. 2000/-. But the defendant is not willing to execute the sale deed in his favour. Resultantly, he sent notices by registered post to defendant on 20.10.1986, 3.11.1986, 6.12.1986, 15.1.1987 and 4.2.1987, but the defendant is not agreeing to execute the sale deed. Hence, a suit for specific performance of the contract has been filed by him.

4. The defendant denied the plaint averments by filing written-statement and denied the execution of document of agreement of sale and it has been pleaded by him that he never entered into an agreement of sale with the plaintiff. The factum of receiving any amount in advance or any further payment made by plaintiff on different dates towards sale consideration has also been denied by him.

5. In special plea it has been pleaded by the defendant that the suit is not maintainable because it is barred by Anusuchit Jati Tatha Anusuchit Jan Jati Rini Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1967 enacted by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

6. The learned trial Court on the basis of averments made in the plaint and denial in the written statement framed necessary issues and the parties thereafter adduced their evidence. The learned Trial Court at the time of passing of judgment came to hold that the execution of the document is proved and factum of receiving of sum of Rs. 10,000/- by the defendant from plaintiff is also proved, but did not grant a decree of specific performance of contract although a decree to return sum of Rs. 8,000/- has been passed. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff was partially decreed.

7. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court for not granting the decree for specific performance of contract the plaintiff filed first appeal. However, the defendant did not file any cross appeal assailing the judgment and decree of learned trial Court passing a money decree against him nor filed any cross objections challenging the execution of agreement of sale which was found to be proved by the learned trial Court. Hence, the said finding of learned trial Court became final.

8. The learned first appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff and in this manner this second appeal has been filed by him before this Court.

9. This Court on 7.10.1998 admitted this second appeal on the following substantial question of law :-

“Whether the appellate Court erred in law in holding that the agreement for sale of the suit house was void being in contravention to sub-section (6) of section 165 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 even when the property in suit was not an agriculture land and the defendant was not a member of an aboriginal tribe.?”

10. Today one more substantial question of law has been framed which reads thus :

“Whether the learned first appellate Court was obliged to give finding as