Honble SHARMA, J. – This Court on 20.5.1988 while admitting the appeal framed as many as five substantial questions of law, and the same reads thus– (1) Whether the restrictions of Secs. 42(a) & 53(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 are applicable in the present case on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record ? (2) Whether the provisions of Secs. 42, 42A & 53(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Rr. 24-E, 66 & Schedule of Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules, 1955 being contrary to Arts. 14 & 300A of the Constitution of India are liable to be struck down ? (3) Whether direction for refund of agreement amount etc. should have been made even without demand of that relief at the time of rejection of suit for specific performance of the contract ? (4) Whether the application of the appellant for seeking alternative relief by way of amendment u/Ss. 21 & 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 r/w O.6 R.17, may be allowed and case be remanded to trial Court for inquiry at the stage of second appeal ? (5) Whether on account of the amendment made in R. 24 (E) of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules and Sec. 53(1) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act suit is liable to be decreed by deciding issue No. 4 in favour of the appellant ? (2). These questions arose in the circumstances set out below. The appellant and respondent No. 6 (for short the plaintiffs) instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract for sale of agricultural land. The plaintiffs are real brothers and defendants 1 to 5 are members of Hindu undivided family. The agricultural land of the defendants bearing khasra No. 156 measuring 30 bighas and 12 biswas is situa- ted in the village Panchayat Sabalpura, Tehsil Amer and it was mutated in the name of defendant No. 1. On 6.2.1976 the defendant No. 1 and late Chhitar i.e. husband of the defendant No.2 and father of the defendants 3 to 5 agreed to sale the eastern half part of the above land measuring 15 bighas and 6 biswas in consideration of Rs. 8,000/- and executed an agreement to sale this land after receiving the whole consideration and handed over physical possession of the land agreed to be sold. 8,000/- and executed an agreement to sale this land after receiving the whole consideration and handed over physical possession of the land agreed to be sold. It was further agreed that the sale deed will be registered within two years and the sale deed was not registered within the stipulated period by the defendants even after its specific demand by the plaintiffs. The suit for specific performance was filed in the trial Court. (3). The defendants filed their written statement with the averment that they have not made any agreement on 6.2.1976 to sale half part of Khasra No. 156 to the plaintiffs, nor they have received the consideration and nor they have handed over the physical possession of the land. The alleged agreement was forged one and according to the provisions contained in Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act)sale of part of Khasra No. 156 was illegal. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as five issues. Issues 4 and 5 are relevant for the purposes of decision of this second appeal, which are being reproduced : (English translation). ``4. Whether the sale of part of Khasra number is illegal in view of Sec. 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act ? 5. Relief ? (4). Both the parties adduced evidence and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.5.1981 decided issue No.4 in favour of the defendant and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs preferred civil regular first appeal u/S . 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. But the appeal was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 3.2.1986. Hence this second appeal. (5). An application is made by the appellant before this Court that the averments that after the decision of the Civil Regular Appeal on 3.2.1986 and during the pendency of this second appeal in this Court, certain amendments have been introduced in Sec. 42A of the Act and R. 24 DDD of the Rajasthan Tenancy (Government) Rules as Government has decided to regularise the division of holdings made by the land holders for agricultural purposes in contravention of Sec. 42(a) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act which prohibited division of land holding into fragments of less areas then the minimum prescribed area and subsequently Secs. 5, 42(a), 42-A & 53 of the Act were also amended and restrictions regarding fragmentation had been deleted. Due to change of law subsequent to the date of decree appealed against it was prayed that the decision on issues 4 and 5 made be reconsidered. (6). I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully scanned the record as well the provisions so amended. I am of the view that issues 4 and 5 require reconsideration in view of the amended provisions. The amended provisions are prima facie retrospective in nature and the said amendments go in the root of the matter. (7). Consequently I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remit the case to the learned trial Court for fresh decision on issues 4 and 5 in view of the subsequent amendments made as aforesaid. The record of the case be sent back forthwith. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 2.2.1998.