JUDGMENT : G.R. UDHWANI, J. 1. These Revision Applications arise out of the order rendered under O.7 R.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC) rejecting the application in a suit lodged by the opponent for specific performance of the contract in respect of different parcels of land involved in respective revision applications. 2. Application under O.7 R.11 came to be tendered by the opponent urging the rejection of the plaint on the ground that it was barred by Section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act; the plaintiff not being an agriculturist (02) that it was also barred by limitation since the suit was filed only in the year 2014 seeking specific performance of the contract in relation to the land in question executed in the year 2008 and (03) that the plaintiff has no cause of action since it could not demonstrate how it was ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. 3. Per contra, the plaint was sought to be defended on the ground that in absence of challenge to the agreement, such contention was not maintainable. It was also argued that it was permissible for the Court to pass conditional decree requiring the plaintiff to comply with Section 63 of the aforesaid Act. 4. To appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 63 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act: “63. (1) Save as provided in this Act: (a) no sale (including sales in execution of a decree of a Civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue), gift exchange or lease of any land or interest therein. (b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgage. (c) no agreement made by an instrument in writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land or interest therein. (b) no mortgage of any land or interest therein, in which the possession of the mortgaged property is delivered to the mortgage. (c) no agreement made by an instrument in writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land or interest therein. Shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist [or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not an agricultural labourer]: Provided that the Collector or an officer authorised by the [State] Government in this behalf may grant permission for such sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage [or for such agreement] on such conditions as may be prescribed: Provided further that no such permission shall be granted, where land is being sold to a person who is not an agriculturist for agricultural purpose, if the annual income of such person from other sources exceeds five thousand rupees. (1A) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt from the provisions of sub-section (1), for the transfer of any agricultural land to any public trust established for the charitable purpose and which is non-profitable in nature, for the use of such land in the field of health and education, subject to such conditions as may be specified therein. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to [prohibit the sale, gift, exchange or lease, or the agreement for the sale, gift, exchange or lease of] a dwelling house or the site thereof or any land appurtenant to it in favour of an agricultural labourer or an artisan [or a person carrying on any allied pursuit]. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply or be deemed to have applied to a mortgage of any land or interest therein effected in favour of a cooperative society as security for the loan advanced by such society [or any transfer declared to be a mortgage by a court under section 24 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Relief Act, 1947]. (4) Nothing in section 63A shall apply to any sale made under sub-section (1).” 4.1 Clearly, clause (c) of Section 63(1) bars an agreement to sell. (4) Nothing in section 63A shall apply to any sale made under sub-section (1).” 4.1 Clearly, clause (c) of Section 63(1) bars an agreement to sell. In fact, any agreement in breach of the said provisions is declared to be invalid, if the proposed purchaser is non-agriculturist, however as indicated in the proviso, it would be open for the Collector to grant the permission on certain terms and conditions. It would thus appear that there is no complete bar against agreement to sell. 4.2 It would be beneficial to make reference to the case of Legal Heirs of Karamsibhai Maijibhai and Others vs. Somiben W/o Haribhai Jelabhai and Others, rendered in SCA No. 17525 of 2003 on 02.07.2009 wherein it has been held that the permission can be granted for agreement to sell under Section 63 of the Act and therefore, conditional decree can be passed: “5. Since the petitioners were apprehending that the legal heirs of the original owner of the suit property were trying to transfer the suit property to third parties and to interfere in the possession of the original plaintiff of the suit land the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 308 of 2003 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Surat for specific performance of the contract and for permanent injunction against the respondents. Upon serving of the summons of the Court the respondents approached their advocate. 6. It is also the case of the petitioner that because of efforts put up by the advocate appearing for the respective parties to the suit all the parties agreed for settlement and submitted written compromise below Ex.23 in the Court in consonance with Order 23 Rule 3 of the C.P.C. The learned trial Judge after considering the provisions contained in Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act rejected the said compromise purshis vide his order dated 3.10.2003. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition.” Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in not accepting the said contention. It is this order, which is under challenge in the present petition.” Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in not accepting the said contention. 4.3 However, the matter does not rest there; it is evident from the resolution passed by opponent on 21.10.2013 that at the time of division of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bavla into Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bavla and Dholka, in the year 2000-2001, the committee had no funds with it to pay to the farmers with whom the agreement to sell was executed. 4.4 It is settled law that the party seeking specific performance of the contract must come up with averments in the plaint that it was always ready and willing to perform its part of the contract. The averments must be meaningful and not mere bald statement. The resolution abovestated stand testimony to the fact that the opponent-APMC was unable to perform its part of the contract at the relevant point of time. 5. It is misconceived to place reliance upon Navnitbhai Harmanbhai Patel vs. Ambalal Kalidas Patel Since Deceased through His Heirs rendered in First Appeal No. 558 of 2002 by this Hon'ble Court on 21.08.2018, inasmuch as; in the said case, the issue of jurisdiction of the Court below to determining the status of a person as agriculturist was in question and the case arose on conclusion of the trail under Section 96 of the CPC where issues were finally adjudicated. In that context, this Court in paragraph 28 to 28.5 held thus: “28. Whether the trial court was justified in holding that the suit agreement is void? 28.1 The trial court, in the impugned judgment, has held that the plaintiffs not being agriculturists were not entitled to purchase agricultural land and, therefore, the suit agreement is violative of the provisions of section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In this regard it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act. 28.1 The trial court, in the impugned judgment, has held that the plaintiffs not being agriculturists were not entitled to purchase agricultural land and, therefore, the suit agreement is violative of the provisions of section 63 of the Tenancy Act. In this regard it may be pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Tenancy Act. Section 63 of the Tenancy Act bars transfers to non-agriculturists and inter alia provides that save as provided in the Act no agreement made by an instrument in writing for the sale, gift, exchange, lease or mortgage of any land or any interest therein shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist or who being an agriculturist cultivates personally land not less than the ceiling area whether as an owner or tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant or who is not agricultural labourer. Clearly, therefore, section 63 bars even agreements of sale in favour of non-agriculturists. 28.2. Section 85 of the Tenancy Act which bears the heading “Bar of jurisdiction.” Sub-section (1) thereof provides that no civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or Tribunal, a Manager, the Collector, the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal or the State Government in appeal or revision or the State Government in exercise of their powers of control. 28.3 Section 70 of the Tenancy Act provides for the duties and functions to be performed by the Mamlatdar. Clause (a) thereof reads thus: “to decide whether a person is an agriculturist.” Therefore, the question as to whether the plaintiffs are agriculturists within the meaning of such expression as contemplated in the Tenancy Act falls within the ambit of the duties of the Mamlatdar under section 70 of the Tenancy Act and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide such question is ousted. The trial court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide as to whether the plaintiffs who were residing at a distance of more than eight kilometres from the suit land were agriculturists or not. Besides, section 63 of the Tenancy Act inter alia provides that no sale shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist except in the circumstances provided there under. Besides, section 63 of the Tenancy Act inter alia provides that no sale shall be valid in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist except in the circumstances provided there under. Section 84C of the Tenancy Act provides that wherein respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any provisions of the Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue notice and hold inquiry as provided for in section 84B and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not valid. Sub-section (2) thereof inter alia provides that if after holding inquiry, the Mamlatdar comes to the conclusion that the transfer or acquisition of land to be invalid, he shall make an order declaring the transfer or acquisition to be invalid. Therefore, the jurisdiction to decide question as regards the validity of a transfer or acquisition of land is vested in the Mamlatdar under section 84C of the Tenancy Act and consequently, the jurisdiction of the trial court to decide such question is barred. The trial court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to determine as to whether the suit agreement was in breach of the provisions of section 63 of the Tenancy Act and decide on the validity thereof. 28.4 Moreover, on a plain reading of the recitals contained in the suit agreement, it is evident that there was no agreement to sell agricultural lands but that the agreement was to sell nonagricultural land as the defendant was first required to obtain N.A. permission and get such entry made in the revenue record and after obtaining the title clearance certificate, to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs or their nominees. The trial court, however, has totally ignored this part of the suit agreement and embarked upon an unnecessary inquiry as to whether the plaintiffs were agriculturist and were competent to purchase the suit lands. The trial court, however, has totally ignored this part of the suit agreement and embarked upon an unnecessary inquiry as to whether the plaintiffs were agriculturist and were competent to purchase the suit lands. 28.5 In the light of the fact that the suit agreement is an agreement to sell nonagricultural land, apart from the fact that the trial court had no jurisdiction to pronounce on the validity of the suit agreement on the ground of breach of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, even otherwise, the provisions of section 63 of the Tenancy Act would not be attracted to the transaction in question. The trial court was, therefore, not justified in holding that the suit agreement was void. Point No. 3 stands answered accordingly.” 6. It cannot be disputed that in view of bar contained in Section 85 of the Tenancy Act, Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to decide the status of the person as an agriculturist. Pertinently, on the ground that it has no jurisdiction, Civil Court can always reject the plaint under O.7 R.11(d) of the Act if a legal bar against exercise of the jurisdiction exists. However, as indicated above, insofar as Section 63 of the Tenancy Act is concerned, the conditional decree in the case of specific performance of the contract can always be passed. 7. It cannot be disputed that if the plea of limitation raises triable issues, it would be a mixed question of law and fact and cannot be taken into consideration for rejection of the plaint under O.7 R.11 of the CPC. Therefore, notwithstanding the ratio to the above effect in Chhotanben and Another vs. Kiritbhai Jalrkushnabhai Thakkar and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 422 , this Court is of the opinion that the issue of limitation herein not being a mixed question of fact and law, the ratio cannot be applied. 8. Therefore, notwithstanding the ratio to the above effect in Chhotanben and Another vs. Kiritbhai Jalrkushnabhai Thakkar and Others, (2018) 6 SCC 422 , this Court is of the opinion that the issue of limitation herein not being a mixed question of fact and law, the ratio cannot be applied. 8. In the opinion of this Court, the trial Court was oblivious of the fact that in absence of the demonstration of readiness and willingness to perform its part of the contract, the plaintiff had no cause of action and in case of agreement to sell entered into in the year 2008, the specific performance of the contract which can be filed within a period of three years of the denial of execution of the sale-deed, was clearly barred by limitation as it was filed after about six years of the date of the agreement to sell. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the revisions must succeed. Accordingly, revision applications are allowed and impugned orders are quashed and set aside, plaint in each of the suit is ordered to be rejected.