K.S. Mudagal, J.

This is the defendants second appeal arising out of the judgment and decree dated 1.10.2004 in RA No.15/1999 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Chikk-aballapura. By the impugned judgment, the first Appellate Court has allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of the agreement of sale.

2. Appellants 1 and 2 are defendants 2 and 3 before the Trial Court. Their mother Chikka Venkatamma was the 1st defendant. She died during the pendency of the first appeal. Therefore, the present appellant No.3 was brought on record in the first appeal as respondent No.2. The respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.452/1992 against the defendants Chikka Venkatamma, Thimmaiah- appellant No.1 and Venkatapaty-appellant No.2 for specific performance of agreement dated 1.10.1986.

Plaintiff's case in brief is as follows:

The defendants entered into an agreement of sale dated 1.10.1986 in respect of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.5/6, new No.15 measuring 2 acres 18 guntas for sale consideration of Rs.10,000/-. They received entire sale consideration and put him in possession of the suit property in part performance of the contract. Since the suit property was granted land under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, it was agreed that the defendants will execute the sale deed after the expiry of the period of bar against alienation. The defendants failed to perform the contract. Therefore, he got issued notice dated 29.7.1992. Even thereafter the defendants are not performing their part of contract. He is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Thus, he seeks decree of specific performance.

4. Defendants contested the suit denying the execution of the agreement of sale and the enforceability of the said agreement on the ground that the same is hit by Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and is void. They further contended that the agreement is concocted and forged one and the notice dated 29.7.1992 is irrelevant. On such pleadings, trial court framed following issues and additional issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants executed an Agreement of sale in respect of suit property in his favour on 01.10.1986?

2. Does he further prove that in part performance of Agreement the Defendants delivered possession of the Suit Property to him?

3. Does he further prove that he has been always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?

4. Is he entitled to a decree for specific performance?

5. What decree or Order?

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

1. Whether Defendants prove that the Suit is not maintainable and the agreement referred in plaint dated 01/10/1986 is unenforceable in Law?"

5. On the plaintiffs side himself, the attesting witnesses and the scribe are examined as P.W. 1 to 4 and documents Exs. P1 to P4 are marked. On behalf of defendants, 2nd defendant is examined as D.W.1 and one Jayaramaiah as D.W.2 and Exs. D.1 to D.6 are marked.

6. After hearing the parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit holding that:

(a) On comparison by the Court, the signatures of D.W. 1/defendant No.2 on Ex. P.1 the agreement of sale and Ex. P.2 ' " the agreement of sale in favour of G. R. Narasimhaiah, do not match with each other.

(b) the evidence of witnesses regarding execution of agreement of sale is uncred-it-worthy viz., the attesting witnesses are the blood relatives of the plaintiff and the scribe is from Shidlaghatta, whereas, agreement is said to be executed at Chikkaballapura.

(c) the agreement is hit by provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and unenforceable.

7. The plaintiff filed R.A. No. 15/1999 before the Addl. District Court, Chikkaballapura. The First Appellate Court after hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance on the following g