B.S. Patil, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court has referred this Regular First Appeal to the Full Bench stating that opinion expressed by a co-ordinate bench in the case of Sri Chandrashekhar and Others Vs. The Tuheed Co-operative Housing Society (Regd.) and Others (2008 (5) KCCR SN 632) : ILR 2008 Kar 2003) that no relief of specific performance could be granted in respect of agricultural land due to the prohibition in law for purchase of the same by a non-agriculturist as per Section 79B and Section 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, (for short 'the Act') was contrary to four Division Bench judgments of this Court rendered earlier. The order of reference states that after considering the effect of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act including Section 132 thereof which enacts a bar on the Civil Court to decide the issue, four Division Benches of this Court considered the question whether an intending purchaser of an agricultural land was an agriculturist and specific performance of such agreement of sale could be ordered in the light of the prohibition enacted under Section 79B and Section 80 of the Land Reforms Act in favour of such intending purchaser and have held that such a question would not arise and the same could not be gone into, but, without considering these judgments a different view was expressed in Tuheed Co-operative Housing Society's case. Material part of the order of reference extracted hereunder:

"The primary ground on which the Court below has negated the agreement of sale was that the appellants/plaintiffs were non-agriculturists and the property sought to be purchased was agricultural land and hence following a decision of this Court in the case of Sri Chandrashekhar and Others Vs. The Tuheed Cooperative Housing Society (Regd.) and Others, ILR 2008 Kar 2003, wherein it has been laid down that no relief of specific performance could have been granted in respect of property which was agricultural land if there was a prohibition in law for purchase of the same by a non-agriculturist in terms of the prohibition contained under Section 79-B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity). It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the view expressed in the aforesaid judgment by a Division Bench of this Court is without reference to four judgments of Benches of co-ordinate jurisdiction of this Court which have held otherwise. In that, the decisions in Shivannappa Sidramappa Prantur Vs. Virupaxappa Allappa Bagi, ILR 1980 Kar 702, KM. Jose and Others Vs. D. Anantha Bhat, AIR 1987 Kar 173, Manasa Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Marikellaiah and Others, AIR 2006 Kar 273 and Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil and Others Vs. Guddappa and Another, 2009 (1) KLJ 547 having consistently expressed that notwithstanding Section 79B of the Act, which prohibits the holding of agricultural land by a person who is not an agriculturist and personally cultivating the land, so also Section 80 of the Act which bars the transfer of agricultural land in favour of a person who is not an agriculturist and with reference to Section 132 of the Act which confers a bar on the Civil Court to decided an issue which is required to be decided under the Act and therefore, it has laid down in those decisions that an agreement of sale in respect of agricultural land, in a suit for specific performance would not give rise to an issue whether the intending purchaser is an agriculturist or not."

2. It is clear that there are four judgments of the Division Bench in the cases of Shivannappa Sidramappa Prantur Vs. Virupaxappa Allappa Bagi, ILR 1980 Kar 702, KM. Jose and Others Vs. D. Anantha Bhat, AIR 1987 Kar 173, Manasa Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Marikellaiah and Others, AIR 2006 Kar 273 and Parvatagouda Ninganagouda Patil and Others Vs. Guddappa and Another, 2009 (1) KLJ 547 which have consistently held that notwithstanding Section 79-B of the Act which prohibits a per