( 1 ) THE instant appeal is filed to challenge the judgment and decree, dated 7-4-1994 in o. s. No. 4443 of 1990 on the file of the vi additional city civil judge, Bangalore, whereby the said judge had dismissed the suit of the appellant.

( 2 ) I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri m. r. achar and the learned counsel for the respondent, Sri g. Lingappa. I have also perused the records.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief leading to the above appeal are as follows: that the appellant had filed suit in o. s. No. 4443 of 1990 on 30-7-1990 for a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 9-6-1988 executed by the respondent for sale of site bearing No. 67, formed by the Bangalore development authority in a layout called further extension of mahalakshmi layout, Bangalore, measuring 12. 20 metres into15. 50 + 14. 65 / 3 metres, that the sale consideration of Rs. 85,000/- and cash payment of Rs. 20,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent on the same day as advance amount, that the said site was allotted by the Bangalore development authority to the respondent under a letter of allotment, dated 5-5-1984 marked as ex. D-3 and the possession was given to him under possession certificate, dated 21-8-1985 marked as ex. D-4. The respondent had also entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement, dated 24-4-1985 marked as ex. P-10, that the time fixed for the execution of the sale deed under the agreement of sale was three months and accordingly the respondent would have executed the sale deed on or before 8-9-1988, that the appellant requested the respondent to execute a sale deed but the respondent did not do so, whereupon the appellant had sent a letter on 8-9-1988 marked as ex. P-2 calling upon the respondent to receive the balance amount of Rs. 65,000/- towards sale consideration and further to execute a deed of sale, that thereafter the appellant had also sent a legal notice on 30-11-1988 marked as ex. P-4 demanding execution of the sale deed as agreed upon under the agreement of sale. As against that the respondent had caused for a reply notice as at ex. P-6 whereupon the respondent had also sent a cheque for Rs. 21,400/- being the earnest money of Rs. 20,000/- and interest at 12% p. a. from June 1988 to december, 1988. He further stated in the said reply notice that the respondent had got issued legal notice on 13-12-1988 whereby he revoked the agreement of sale entered into by him with the appellant. The appellant, however, caused for yet another notice, dated 22-2-1989 as at ex. P-8 demanding the respondent to execute a sale deed and further communicating therein that he would not encash the above cheque the respondent had sent for Rs. 21,400/ -. The appellant having found the respondent not responding to the demand to execute the sale deed, had ultimately resorted to the said suit in. o. s, no, 4443 of 1990 before the vi additional city civil judge, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as city civil judge for convenience ).

( 4 ) THAT the respondent having entered into appearance in the suit, contested the same, that he filed his detailed written statement on 5-10-1991 wherein though he had admitted about the execution of the agreement of sale, he had contended therein that the site in question was not alienable for 10 years, that subsequent to the execution of the agreement of sale by him on 9-6-1988, on 20-6-1988 the government had issued a notification in exercise of powers conferred on it under Section 22 (a) of the Registration Act, 1980 as amended by the Karnataka Act 55 of 1976 in No. Rd 132 arg 76 making certain amendment to earlier notification No. Rd 132 erg 76, dated 14-3-1979, prohibiting transfer of Bangalore development authority sites during the period of lease under lease-cum-sale agreement entered into by an allottee with the Bangalore development authority under the provision of the Bangalore development authority (allotment of sites) rules, 1984, that the agreement of sale