JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard Sri Anshu Chaudhary learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This is defendants’ second appeal arising out of O.S. No. 387 of 1991 which was decreed by Civil Judge Junior Division, Kayamganj, District Farrukhabad on 24.5.2002. Against the said judgment and decree, defendants appellants filed Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002, which was dismissed by A.D.J./ Special Judge, E.C. Act, Farrukhabad on 11.8.2011 hence this second appeal. 3. Through the impugned judgment and decree, suit for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 27.11.1990 executed by the defendants appellants in favour of plaintiff respondent has been decreed. The agreement was in respect of an agricultural plot, area of which is 0.04 acres. Agreed sale consideration was Rs.17000/- out of which Rs. 5000/- were paid at the time of execution of agreement. The land in dispute was part of agricultural Plot No. 488, total area 0.49 acres in which appellants’ share was 0.12 acres. Both the Courts below found that the agreement was in fact executed and plaintiff had always been ready and willing to get the sale-deed executed after performing her part of the agreement. These findings are pure findings of fact. 4. It was also argued before the Courts below that the agreement was hit by Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act under which transfer of fragment of agricultural land was prohibited. However no such plea was raised before the trial Court hence no issue in respect thereof was framed. The said plea was raised before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate Court mentioned that Section 168-A of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act had been deleted since 23.8.2004. 5. I fully agree with the view of the lower appellate Court that as Section 168-A has been deleted hence no relief can be granted to the defendants on the basis thereof. It would have been relevant to consider this point if the said Section had still been on the statute book. The position will have to be seen as on the date of the sale-deed. 6. It would have been relevant to consider this point if the said Section had still been on the statute book. The position will have to be seen as on the date of the sale-deed. 6. However I am of the opinion that in view of Supreme Court authority in Pratap Lakshman Muchandi v. Shamlal Uddavadas Wadhwa, AIR 2008 SC 1378 , the Courts below should have considered the question of directing the plaintiff to pay some more amount to the defendants in view of long pendency of litigation and tremendous rise in price of immovable properties meanwhile. 7. Specific performance is an equitable relief. Accordingly, in order to adjust the equities the following judgment/ order is passed : 8. Judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate Court is substantially affirmed, however it is varied only to the extent that in addition to the balance sale consideration under the agreement, plaintiff respondent shall pay Rs. 10,000/- more to the defendants appellants for execution of the sale-deed. 9. Second appeal is accordingly disposed of. 10. This judgment/ order has been passed without issuing notice to the plaintiff respondent in view of the fact that admitting the appeal and issuing notice to the plaintiff would be more detrimental to her. However, in case plaintiff respondent feels aggrieved by this order/ judgment/ decree she is at complete liberty to file application for recall of this order. ——————