ADMIT.
The following substantial question arise for determination of this Court in the present Second Appeal.
(1). Whether the present Second Appeal at the instance of the appellants who are purchasers of some of the plots from the subsequent purchaser (subsequent purchaser who have purchased land from the original vendor) and who had also preferred appeal before the lower Appellate Court after granting leave by the learned Appellate Court to prefer the appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, is maintainable ?
(2). Whether the judgment passed by the learned trial Court passed against the original defendant no.2 for specific performance of the agreement to sell would be binding to the appellants who have purchased some of the plots from the subsequent purchasers who purchased from the original vendor when they are not party to the suit ?
(3). Whether appellants herein who are purchasers of some of the plots from the subsequent purchasers (who purchased from the original vendor) can be said to be the bonafide purchasers and consequently the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court passed against original defendant no.2 of specific performance of the agreement to sell would be binding to them ?
(4). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in not holding that the decree was nullity in view of the fact that the defendant no.2- Aminaben had filed during the pendency of the suit and her heirs were not brought on record ?
(5).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in not framing relevant and necessary issues like whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the suit was maintainable when the partnership firm was an unregistered one and issue regarding the specific performance of the agreement was not raised ?
(6).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in setting aside the cancellation of NA order dated 24.8.1976 without joining the District Development Officer/ District Panchayat as party defendant ?
(7).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in not holding that the suit was barred by limitation in view of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?
(8).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in not holding that the suit was not maintainable in view off the partnership firm being an unregistered firm and bar of Section 69 of the Partnership Act would apply ?
(9).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in granting relief of specific performance of the contract without there being any issue raised in that behalf ?
(10).
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in not holding that in view of the provisions contained in Section 52 of Transfer of Properties Act with State amendment and Section 18 of the Indian Registration Act, principles of lis-pendence would not apply when the notice of suit with all necessary particulars was not registered with the competent authority and the entry was no effected in the revenue record ?
(11). Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Courts below have committed an error of substantial question of law in not holding that in view of the cancellation of earlier NA permission granted by the District Development Officer earlier, performance of the agreement had become impossible and there was frustration of the agreement ?
( M. R. Shah, J. ) kaushik Top