( 1 ) HEARD Sri Vedula Venkataramana, the learned counsel representing the appellant and Sri C. Sadasiva Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent.

( 2 ) THE unsuccessful second defendant in both the Courts below had preferred the second appeal. This Court on 1-5-1997 admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law specified in ground No. 5 of the Memorandum of Appeal; (1) Whether the Courts below, in the absence of contest of the suit by the original owner (1st defendant) are justified in proceeding with the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale, Ex. A-1, when the appellant/2nd defendant has pleaded that Ex. A-1 is a fabricated and concocted document, without framing a specific issue as to the genuineness of Ex. A-1 ? (2) Whether the Courts below are justified in appreciating the relative reliability of Ex. A-1 and B-1 of agreement of sale and whether the finding of the lower appellate Court that the improbabilities appearing in the case of the 2nd defendant over the small and minor bona fides appearing in the case of plaintiff ex. A-1, is a correct approach of adjudicating the suit claim as the burden is always on the plaintiff and any inconsistency in the case of the defendant cannot result in an advantage to the plaintiff to get a decree in the suit? (3) Whether the findings of the courts below that the appellant/2nd defendant is not a bona fide purchaser for value and without notice and hence not protected by section 19 (b) of the Specific Relief act, are sustainable in law? (4) Whether the appreciation of the evidence by the Courts below that as the suit notice Ex. A-2 was not replied and Ex. B-10 sale deed does not contain the recital about the ex. B-1 agreement of sale and ex. B-10 does not refer to the discharge of debts in Exs. B-3 to b-7, in any manner strengthen the case of the plaintiff resulting in grant of a decree for specific performance, finding that Ex B-10 sale deed is not binding on the plaintiff ? (5) Whether or not in a suit for specific performance, the civil court should give a finding that the suit agreement of sale is genuine and when the vendor did not contest the suit, whether the civil court adjudicates the genuineness of the suit agreement of sale on the self- serving evidence of the plaintiff and whether the purchaser under a sale deed is placed in a comparative disadvantageous position than the plaintiff and without framing a issue regarding the genuineness and credibility of the suit agreement of sale, can the civil court proceed to adjudicate as to whether the title of the defendant is bona fide or not, when the payment of part consideration recited in Ex A-1 is not supported by any receipt showing such payment ?

( 3 ) SRI Vedula Venkata Ramana, the learned counsel representing the appellant/ second defendant would submit that findings had been recorded by both the Courts below relating to Ex A-1 without a specific issue being framed in this regard The learned counsel also pointed out that the relief of specific performance itself is a discretionary relief and the Courts below definitely erred in decreeing the suit of the first respondent herein-plaintiff The learned counsel had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties and the findings recorded by both the Courts below in this regard He placed strong reliance on manjunath Anandappa Urf Shivappa Hansi v Tammanasa and Shankarlal Narayandas mundade v The New Mofussil Company ltd.

( 4 ) PER contra, Sri C Sadasiva Reddy, the learned counsel representing the first respondent-plaintiff would maintain that in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, this is not a fit case to be interfered with in a second appeal The learned counsel also pointed out that the questions of law which had been framed by the appellant/second defendant are all only questions of fact and these are not questions of law much less substantial