VENKATASWAMI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's appeal under S. 96 of the C. P. Code. The suit in question was O. S. No. 72 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge at Bidar. The suit was for declaration of title, possession, mesne profits and incidental reliefs and filed by the respondents herein. The suit has been eventually decreed on terms. Hence this appeal by the defendant. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that they succeeded to the suit property as heirs of their father, and that the defendant had no manner of right, title, or interest in the said property after the expiry of the period stipulated under an alleged mortgage the terms of which need not be set out for our present purpose. The defence in the main is that the defendant was put in possession of these suit properties pursuant to an agreement to sell entered into by the father of the plaintiffs in the year 1957, produced and marked in the suit as Ext. D-5. ( 3 ) THE court below came to the conclusion that the agreement to sell was one which would clearly give rise to a defence of part performance under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. But having regard to the provisions of S. 47 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 the transaction in question was virtually a permanent alienation falling within the scope and ambit of the said section. It was, therefore concluded that S. 47 would invalidate suph a transfer of possession under s. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. In short, it was held that such a defence would be unavailable to the defendant in a suit based on title. ( 4 ) ON behalf of the appellant, Shri N. Santhosh Hegde, the learned counsel relying on a decision of this Court in Eramma v- Parvathomma (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 179. contended that the view of the Court below was clearly erroneous. On behalf of the respondents, Shri Muralidhar Rao, the learned Counsel, submitted that the agreement relied on behalf of the defendant was clearly a sale deed (Kharidi Patrak') and, therefore, the defence of part performance under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would still be unavailable to the defendant. On behalf of the respondents, Shri Muralidhar Rao, the learned Counsel, submitted that the agreement relied on behalf of the defendant was clearly a sale deed (Kharidi Patrak') and, therefore, the defence of part performance under S. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act would still be unavailable to the defendant. ( 5 ) ON a careful consideration of the matter, we are in agreement with the contention urged on behalf of the appellant. We are also of opinion that having regard to the terms of Ext. D-5, the agreement in question, it was nothing but an agreement to sell contemplating the execution of a sale deed ' at a later date in Eramma's case (1) it was laid down that in a case of part performance under S. 53-A, it was open to a defendant in possession to raise such a plea notwithstanding the provisions of S. 47 (1) of the hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. We are, with respect in agretrnent with the above view. It is seen from the provisions of S. 47 (1) of the aforesaid Act that what it contemplates is a clear case of permanent alienation or a transfer of a like nature thus divesting the owner of his title to the property and vesting it in a transferee. In an agreement of the nature concerned in the present case no title as such passes to the vendee. At best the right conferred on a vendee, is to remain in possession of the property and to protect it by using the agreement and such possession as a shield. In this view, we are unable to sustain the conclusion of the court below in this behalf. ( 6 ) ONCE this conclusion is reached it follows that the suit for possession based on title has to be dismissed. But it is contended by Shri Muralidhar rao that at least in regard to the title of the respondents, a decree of declaration ought to be granted. It is sufficient for us to observe that the grant of a declaratory relief is discretionary. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not disposed to grant even that limited relief of declaration of title of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE result, therefore, is that this appeal succeeds and is allowed. It is sufficient for us to observe that the grant of a declaratory relief is discretionary. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not disposed to grant even that limited relief of declaration of title of the respondents. ( 7 ) THE result, therefore, is that this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and decree of the court below are set aside and the suit is dismissed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it proper to direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout, both here and in the court below. --- *** --- .