The defendant in O.S.No.176/1999 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Anekal, has preferred this second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Fast Track Court-III, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, in R.A.No. 60/2005, wherein it has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.176/1999 and consequently, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for specific performance of agreement to sale, by directing the defendant to execute sale deed relating to the plaint schedule property in favour of the LRs. of the original plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration of Rs.150/.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned Counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs. Perused the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below including the lower Court records.

3. Sri. C.Pattabhiram, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant submits that the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is opposed to law, facts, material and all probabilities of the case.

Learned Counsel submits, the first appellate Court has wrongly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court without appreciating the position of law and evidence on record.

Learned Counsel submits, the alleged sale agreement entered into during the subsistence of legal bar in Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, for sale of fragmented land is illegal and the alleged sale agreement is not enforceable in law and hence the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

Learned Counsel submits, the view taken by the first appellate Court that transaction does not create fragmentation and it results in augmentation is totally new to the law.

Learned Counsel submits, suit filed by the plaintiff after three years from the date of repealing of Fragmentation Act is not maintainable and on this ground also the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside.

Learned Counsel submits, plaintiff has not proved his willingness and readiness from the date of his alleged agreement and hence, suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.

With the above grounds, learned Counsel for the appellant prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court by answering the substantial questions of law framed in the memorandum of appeal in favour of the appellant.

4. Sri. L. Rajanna, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs/respondents submits, that the appellant having not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in dismissing his cross appeal, cannot question the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Learned Counsel submits, in the prayer column of the appeal, the appellant has expressly stated that he is not challenging the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court in the cross appeal. Thereby he submits, the findings of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have become final and cannot be reopened.

Learned Counsel submits, judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court is based on proper reappreciation of facts, circumstances and material evidence on record.

Learned Counsel submits, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the first appellate Court was justified in holding the agreement of sale executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff is not hit by the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Fragmentation Act.

Learned Counsel submits, there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court on issue regarding fragmentation, warranting interference of this Court. With the above grounds, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant who is his brother had entered into a contract of sale wi