The appellate court has the authority to remand a case to the trial court for framing additional issues essential for a just resolution, particularly where the status of a party as an agriculturist is disputed in a suit for specific performance.

JUDGMENT :

PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.

1. The grievance raised by the appellant in the present appeal is that the learned District Judge, Nagpur has wrongly remanded back the matter to the trial court without considering the factual as well as legal position. On that count impugned judgment and order dated 2.9.2022 passed in the Regular Civil Appeal No.260/2017 is under challenge in the matter.

2. In the present appeal, for the sake of convenience, the appellant hereinafter referred as the plaintiff and the respondents are referred as defendants.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that she entered into an agreement with defendants to purchase the field Survey No. 194-A and 194-K ad-measuring 0.81 R and 0.74 R of mouza Chikhli, Tahsil-Kamptee, District-Nagpur for the consideration of Rs.1,91,500/- on 28.3.2002. At the time of agreement, plaintiff had paid Rs.60,000/- as an earnest amount to the defendants. The balance consideration was decided to be paid at the time of executing the sale deed of the suit property. The date of execution of sale deed was decided on or before 28.2.2005.

4. According to the plaintiff, at the time of execution of agreement of sale, the possession of the suit field was handed over by the defendants and accordingly she is in actual possession since the date of agreement of sale.

5. As per agreement of sale, the defendants were avoiding to execute sale-deed in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, legal notice was issued to defendants stating that the plaintiff is willing to execute sale-deed and ready to pay balance amount. But defendants were avoiding to execute sale-deed. Hence, suit for specific performance of contract, declaration, permanent injunction and in alternative return of earnest money was filed.

6. The defendants before the Trial Court denied the agreement of sale took place between them. According to the defendants, they are in the physical possession of the land and same was never handed over to the plaintiff. According to the defendants, the transaction was a money lending transaction and as a security for the hand-loan the agreement of sale was executed between the parties. The defendants accordingly denied the averment made by the plaintiff in his suit and stated that they are willing to repay the entire hand-loan to the plaintiff.

7. In addition to this, the defendants stated that the plaintiff is not the agriculturist, therefore, she has no right to purchase the agricultural field without obtaining due permission from the competent authority.

8. In the light of rival submission between the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues along with findings thereon:

9. On the basis of above said finding and the reasons recorded thereon, the trial court has decreed the suit and defendants were directed to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by accepting the balance consideration amount of Rs.1,26,500/- from the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date of judgment and order.

10. Th