ORDER Satish Chandra , J. - This is a defendants' appeal. It arises out of a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale. The trial court dismissed the suit on the finding that prior to the agreement with the plaintiff the vender Khazan Singh had executed an agreement for sale with the defendants-appellants. Consequently the agreement in favour of the plaintiff cannot prevail over that with the defendants-appellants. The lower appellate court has, however, reversed the finding. It held that the agreement set up by the defendants-appellants was entered into after the agreement with the plaintiff. It, therefore, agreement with the plaintiff on 13th January, 1962, for sale of his 1/12th share in the holding in dispute for Rs. 2,000/-. He had accepted Rs. 500/- as an advance. The findings on both the questions are on facts and are binding in a second appeal. On the findings the suit was rightly decreed. 2. For the appellants it was urged that during the pendency of the case before the lower appellate court, the land in dispute came under consolidation operations. The appellate court ought, therefore, to have stayed the hearing of the suit under Section 5 (b) of the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. That section governs suits and proceedings for declaration of rights, title and interest in land. A suit for specific performance of a contract is for enforcement of the rights under the contract. Such rights are governed by the Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act, and not by the Transfer of Property Act. Hence such a suit cannot be said to be in respect of declaration of rights or interest in the land. Section 5 also covers suits or proceedings for declaration or adjudication of any other right in regard to which proceedings can or ought to be taken under the Act. There is no provision where under the authorities under the U. P. Consolidation of Holdings Act could grant a decree for specific performance of the contract, or in any event, execute such a decree, that is to say compel the vendor to execute a sale-deed in pursuance of the contract, failing which the authorities may do it. There being no such provision, the consolidation authorities may do it. There being no such provision, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to make such declaration or adjudication. There being no such provision, the consolidation authorities may do it. There being no such provision, the consolidation authorities had no jurisdiction to make such declaration or adjudication. Consequently the suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale would not be a suit or proceeding to which Section 5 (2) (a) of the Act may apply. Such a suit was, therefore, not liable to be stayed, or abated after the amendment of Sec 5 by U. P. Act No. XXI of 1966. The appellate court was, therefore, justified in not staying the hearing of the suit. The suit or the appeal could not be abated even here. 3. It was then urged that in view of clause (2) of sub-sec. (c) of Section 5 of the Act a tenure holder could not transfer by way of sale any part of his holding in the consolidation area except with the previous permission of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) . Learned counsel for the respondents has filed a copy of the order dated 28th August, 1966, granting permission to the vendor for sale of his 1112th share for which the chaks and the valuations mentioned in that order have been allotted to him. In view of that order it must be held that the provisions of Section 5 (c) (2) have been satisfied. Under that provision the permission has to be previously obtained, that is to say, it must be previous to the transfer by way of sale. Up till now no deed of sale has been executed. Only the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale has been decreed. The permission would, therefore, ensure for the execution of the decree. 4. The appeal has no merits, but in view of the change in the factual position the decree is modified. The decree for specific performance would relate to the chaks and valuations mentioned in the order of the Settlement Officer (Consolidation) dated 28th August, 1966, instead of the holding which originally belonged to the vendor and which was mentioned in the agreement of sale. The appeal is dismissed with costs.