JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19th April, 2018 and 30th April, 2018 passed by the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai in civil appeal no. 09 of 2016 decreeing the original suit of the plaintiff respondent being original suit no. 82 of 2010 for specific performance of contract. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent bearing no. 82 of 2010 on the basis of registered agreement for sale dated 09.05.2007, whereby defendant/appellant had agreed to transfer the land measuring 4.2140 hectare of plot no. 537/1 and 0.3560 hectare of plot no. 537 for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/- which were paid to the defendant/respondent in advance. 3. The trial court framed as many as eight issues and one of the issues was as to whether sale if takes place pursuant to the agreement, would amount to violation of the provision as contained under Section 154 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. All issues with regard to the validity of agreement for sale consideration paid, title and conditions contained in the agreement for sale, including readiness and willingness on the part of plaintiff for purposes of contract were decided in favour of the plaintiff except issue no. 5 which was decided against the plaintiff/respondent and it was held by the trial court that under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, a tenure holder cannot have more than 12:50 acres of land and any agreement/sale over and above, same would be rendered void. 4. The plaintiff respondent preferred appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and since all issues were decided in favour of plaintiff/appellant, the only issue for determination of the lower appellate court was as to whether the agreement for sale and subsequent sale would be rendered void on account of the fact that plaintiff was already owner of 12 acres of land and, therefore, sale was hit by Section 154 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. It is worth noticeable that although major issues before the trial court were decided against the defendant/appellant but he did not prefer any cross objection or cross appeal questioning the finding of trial court on those issues determined against him. 5. It is worth noticeable that although major issues before the trial court were decided against the defendant/appellant but he did not prefer any cross objection or cross appeal questioning the finding of trial court on those issues determined against him. 5. The lower appellate court has considered the relevant provisions of Section 337 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 that prescribe how are to be computed in certain districts. Section 337 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 reads as under: 337. Computation of the area fixed in certain districts. -For the purposes of computing the area fixed under any of the provisions of this Act. 1½ acres shall count as 1 acre in the following areas: (a) Bundelkhand (aa) [* * * ]; (b) trans-Jamuna portions of the Allahabad, Etawah, Agra and Mathura Districts; (c) the portion of the Mirzapur District south of Kaimur Range; (d) Tappa Upraudh and Tappa Chaurasi (Balai Pahar) of Tahsil Sadar in district Mirzapur; (e) portion of tahsil Robertsganj, district Mirzapur which lies north of Kaimur Range; and (f) pargana Sakteshgarh and the villages mentioned in lists "A" and "B" of Schedule VI in hilly pattis of parganas Ahraura and Bhagwat of tahsil Chunat of district Mirzapur.]" 6. Since the land in suit situate in Bundelkhand area, therefore as per the provision, the area would be computed for the purpose of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 as 1.5. acre equivalent to 1 acre only. Thus having considered the relevant provision as contained under Section 154 of the Act, the lower appellate court has decided the issue in favour of plaintiff/respondent holding that sale as not barred. 7. Having gone the relevant provisions, findings recorded by the lower appellate court as well as issues decided by the trial court which have stood confirmed, in the face of the fact that appellant did not challenge the same, I find no ground to interfere with the findings of fact concluded by courts below. Even otherwise legal position clarified under the statute as discussed above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration by this Court in the present second appeal. 8. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.