S.P. Khare, J.

This is defendant's second appeal u/s 100, Civil Procedure Code. The following substantial question of law was formulated by order dated 18-2-1992 while admitting this appeal:--

"Whether the finding that the appellant was not in possession of the suit property in part performance of the agreement Ex. D-1 is perverse in view of the facts and circumstances of the case."

Answer: No.

The facts relevant for the decision of the question referred above are that Tularam and Puran were Bhumiswamis of the land bearing Khasra No. 84/1 area 2 acres of village Rajon, Tehsil Babai, District Hoshangabad. They belonged to aboriginal tribe. They sold this land to plaintiff Battoobai, a member of the aboriginal tribe, by registered sale-deed dated 23-3-1985 (Ex. P-1). They had delivered possession of this land to defendant Ramkishore, who does not belong to aboriginal tribe, in pursuance of the agreement to sell dated 4-1-1981 (Ex. D-1). The defendant claimed that he is entitled to retain possession of this land in part performance of contract as per section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. That has been negatived by the trial Court and also by the first Appellate Court. The