S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THIS First Appeal is directed by the appellants against the judgment and decree of the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, S. D. , Panch Mahals, Godhara, decided on 30th march, 1996 passed in Special Civil Suit No. 117 of 1986. Under this decree, the defendants No. 3, 4 and 5, the appellants herein, were ordered to pay to the plaintiff- respondents No. 1 and 2, a sum of Rs. 86,800/= with running interest thereon at the rate of 12% p. a. from the date of suit till full realization after deducting the requisite Court fees, if any. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief, are that the Primary School at Rameshara is under the administrative control of defendant No. 3, i. e. , the appellant No. 2 herein District development Officer, who is also the Chief Executive Officer of the Panchmahals District panchayat. The defendant No. 1, the Principal of Buniyadi School at Rameshara, had expired during the pendency of the suit and the suit was ordered to have abated against him. In the said school the mid-day meal scheme of the appellants was under the supervision and organization of defendant No. 2, i. e. , Ganpatsingh Ambalal Chauhan. The plaintiff-respondent No. 2 came up with a case that all the defendants were dealing with the affairs of such mid-day meal scheme. The plaintiffs are the husband and wife having three sons and their one son Rameshbhai, aged 12 years, was studying in the 7th standard of the said school at the time of incident. On 25th September, 1985, Rameshbhai had been to school at 11:00 a. m. In the scheme of the State of Gujarat, i. e. , the mid-day meal scheme, there is no provision to employ the services of the students. At about 2:00 p. m. on the fateful day, Rameshbhai, the son of plaintiff- respondents No. 1 and 2 was asked to serve Dal to other students though it was not his duty nor he could have been asked to perform this duty by any of the respondents. At about 2:00 p. m. on the fateful day, Rameshbhai, the son of plaintiff- respondents No. 1 and 2 was asked to serve Dal to other students though it was not his duty nor he could have been asked to perform this duty by any of the respondents. What it is alleged by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that he was forced to do the same and during the course of discharging the duties, on account of a push being received from other student, he had fallen in the vessel containing boiling Dal and sustained burn injuries. On 29th September 1985 he succumbed to burn injuries and died. A suit has been filed for compensation of Rs. 1 lac. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the State Government had given Rs. 5,000/- ex-gratia and rs. 125/- towards medical expenses. The learned Trial Court under the impugned judgment and decree, awarded Rs. 91,800/- as compensation to the plaintiffs- respondents no. 1 and 2 out of which an amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been deducted and a decree of Rs. 86,800/- with running interest at the rate of 12% p. a. , as stated earlier, has been passed. Hence this appeal before this Court. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants raised only contention that this mid-day meal scheme though was the scheme of the State Government, it has to be implemented by respondent No. 4 and he was the only person concerned who has to pay this amount of compensation to the parents of the student who died in the school on 29th September, 1985 as a result of burns injuries. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2 supported the decree passed by the Trial Court. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants does not dispute that mid-day meal scheme was the scheme of the State of Gujarat. Even if it is taken that the respondent No. 4 was the person who implemented the scheme in the school, his status would not have been more than that of an agent of the State of Gujarat. Even if it is taken that the respondent No. 4 was the person who implemented the scheme in the school, his status would not have been more than that of an agent of the State of Gujarat. He was not the person sponsoring the scheme but he was only working, at the most, as an agent of the State of Gujarat. In a case where in implementation of the scheme some accident has occurred as a result of which a student of the school sustains burn injuries and ultimately succumbs to those injuries, then the first and foremost liability is of the State Government to pay compensation to the parents of the student. This liability of the State Government follows from the fact that in implementation of its scheme as a result of negligence of the persons in carrying out this scheme, the student has sustained burns injuries and ultimately he succumbed to those injuries. It is its liability to compensate to the parents for the loss of their son. Otherwise also, on the record of the suit, no documentary evidence or any other evidence has been produced as to what was the arrangement in between the State of gujarat and Shri Ganpatsingh Ambalal Chauhan. Unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Shri Ganpatsingh Ambalal Chauhan was made responsible for the compensation, if any, to be paid by the State Government as a result of loss of life of a student in an accident resulted in carrying out the scheme, it is difficult to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the appellants, particularly in absence of any such agreement pleaded and proved on behalf of the appellants. ( 8 ) THE matter can also be looked into from another angle. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there was some arrangement or agreement in between the state of Gujarat and Shri Ganpatsingh Ambalal Chauhan under which the later has taken all the responsibility and liability of paying compensation, if any, to be paid for an accident caused in carrying out the mid-day meal scheme, the plaintiffs-respondents are not bound by the said agreement. At the most, this agreement is binding in between the State of Gujarat on one side and Shri Ganpatsingh Ambalal Chauhan on the other, but the third party, i. e. , the parents of the student who has died as a result of accident caused in carrying out this mid-day meal scheme of the Government of Gujarat, are not bound by it and there may not be any brevity of contract and they cannot be non suited on this ground. It is the principal liability of the State of Gujarat and it may, where it has some agreement or arrangement with Shri Ganpatsingh Ambalal Chauhan, take appropriate steps for indemnify to it for this amount of compensation to be paid to the plaintiffs-respondents No. 1 and 2. ( 9 ) OTHERWISE also, on the grounds which I am just given out in the judgment, the contention raised in this appeal by the learned counsel for the appellants is otherwise also not tenable. From the judgment of the Trial Court, I find that this point as raised in this appeal has not been specifically raised before the Trial Court. No such issue has been prayed to be framed in the Trial Court in the suit and further no evidence has been produced on this point. In the absence of any pleadings, issue and proof, otherwise also, when this point was not required to be gone into by the Trial Court, how this Court can permit the appellants to raise this point in this First Appeal. It is no more res-integra that the appellants aggrieved of the judgment of the Trial Court can only raise those grounds of challenge to the judgment which are borne out from the judgment itself and further which points were made the points of contention before the Trial Court and the Trial court, after framing issues on these points of contentions, has recorded findings against the appellants. I have gone through the memo of appeal also and I do not find any such ground has been raised therein by the appellants. ( 10 ) THE net result of the aforesaid discussion is that this appeal is wholly without any merits. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed in-limine. .