ORDER 1. Gare Mudduramaiah (deceased), now represented through his legal representatives; Shri Siddaiah and Mayarangappa (deceased) now represented through their legal representatives, Respondents 2 to 4 herein, allegedly entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of the., appellant on 26-4-1982. The proposed vendors also entered into an agreement to sell the suit property in favour of Smt Gangalakshamma (plaintift), Respondent 1 herein on 1-3-1984. 2. Respondent 1 filed a suit being OS No. 2 of 1985 on the file of the Munsif at Nelamangala, for permanent injunction on the basis of the agreement to sell dated 1-3-1984, for a sum of Rs 5000 out of which she claimed to have paid Rs 4000 to Respondents 2 to 4. The appellant was also made a party-Defendant 4 in the said suit as injunction was sought against him as well. Later on, the said suit with due permission of the court was converted into a suit for specific performance and injunction. The suit was decreed by the trial court. 3. Aggrieved against the decree passed by the trial court, the proposed vendors, Respondents 2 and 3 as well as the appellant filed an appeal which was accepted by the first appellate court. Agreement for sale dated 26-4-1982 in favour of the appellant was not accepted and discarded. The appellant was not found to be in possession of the property in part-performance of the contract. Agreement executed in favour of the plaintiff-Respondent 1 dated 1-3-1984 was found to be in order and valid. He was also found to be in possession of the suit property. The first appellate court partly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. The agreement dated 1-3-1984 though validly executed was held to be not enforceable as it violated and contravened the provisions of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff-Respondent 1 in pursuance of the agreement dated 1-3-1984 was denied on that account. The suit for injunction was decreed. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the first appellate court, the proposed vendors, Respondents 2 to 4 as well as the appellant herein filed second appeal in the High Court. The plaintiff-Respondent 1 also filed cross-objections on the question of violation of the provisions of the Act. The suit for injunction was decreed. 4. Aggrieved against the order of the first appellate court, the proposed vendors, Respondents 2 to 4 as well as the appellant herein filed second appeal in the High Court. The plaintiff-Respondent 1 also filed cross-objections on the question of violation of the provisions of the Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant and Respondents 2 to 4. Cross-objections filed by the plaintiff-Respondent 1 were accepted on the ground that it was for the State to take action under Section 7-A of the Act if the State is of the opinion that there was any violation of the provisions of the Act, but till such an action is taken there was no prohibition to get the decree for specific performance being passed or a sale deed being executed in pursuance of the decree of specific performance, subject to overall and supervisory right of the State under the relevant statute. 5. Under Section 5(4) of the Act read with Section 7 thereof, the person to whom the land is granted as "talawari" (inam) has no right to alienate the property for a period of 15 years. The first appellate court held that although the words used in the Act were that the "sale would be null and void", but since the transaction was void only for a limited period, the word "void" could be construed as "voidable". Although this was a pure question of law, the High Court failed to formulate and adjudicate upon the same. Since asubstantial question of law did arise, the High Court has erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant and in allowing the cross-objections filed by the plaintiff-Respondent 1 without formulating the question of law. 6. Since the High Court has failed to frame the questions of law which did arise from the finding recorded by the first appellate court, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside. The case is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision. 7. The parties would be at liberty to propose the question of law arising in the appeal or cross-objections filed by them. The case is remitted back to the High Court for a fresh decision. 7. The parties would be at liberty to propose the question of law arising in the appeal or cross-objections filed by them. If, in the opinion of the High Court, any questions of law arise in the appeal, then the High Court would first frame the questions of law and then proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. 8. Since the suit in which the present proceedings arise pertains to the year 1985, we would request the High Court to hear and decide the second appeal as expeditiously as possible. 9. The Registry is directed to transmit the record of this case to the High Court forthwith. 10. The appeal accordingly stands allowed. No costs.