C. V. RANE, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will govern the disposal of appeal Nos. 363/70 and 364/70 which arise out of Civil Suit No. 142/65 and Civil Suit No. 124 respectively which were decided by the learned Civil Judge Umreth by in common judgment on 30th April 1969 Civil Suit No. 142/65 was filed by Patel Shantabhai Narshibhai since deceased. According to him he was cultivating the suit land bearing survey No. 41 of the village Thamna as a tenant of Shrimati Kamalagauri Trambaklal and others. He was declared to be a deemed purchaser of the suit land from 1st April 1957 and the proceedings were started by the Lands Tribunal under sec. 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act The Lands Tribunal fixed the price of the suit land at Rs. 1534. 52 P. on 15th December 1962 and Shantabhai was directed to pay the said amount to the landlords. As Shantabhai was not in good health he was taking the help of one Patel Chhotabhai Shankerbhai for getting the suit land cultivated. In the year 1965-66 Shantabhai had raised paddy crop in the field. On 12th October 1965 Chhotabhai Shankerbhai illegally entered the suit field and removed paddy crop. Shantabhai therefore filed the above suit to obtain a declaration that the suit field was of his absolute ownership and that the defendant had no right whatsoever over the field and also a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession of the field in question. He also prayed that the defendant should be ordered to return the paddy removed by him. As Shantabhai died on 1st March 1966 his widow and two minor sons were brought on record as his heirs and legal representatives. His widow also died on 14th July 1966 as a result of which the suit was continued by one Babarbhai Narshibhai as the guardian of the minor sons of deceased Shantabhai. Babarbhai is the brother of deceased Shantabhai. It appears that in the beginning Civil Court had issued an ad interim injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. It was however vacated subsequently. According to the plaintiffs after the ad interim injunction was vacated defendant Chhotabhai took possession of the suit field. They therefore made an application to amend the plaint. It appears that in the beginning Civil Court had issued an ad interim injunction against the defendant restraining him from interfering with the plaintiffs possession. It was however vacated subsequently. According to the plaintiffs after the ad interim injunction was vacated defendant Chhotabhai took possession of the suit field. They therefore made an application to amend the plaint. As a result of the amendment the prayer for possession of the suit field was also added. ( 2 ) DEFENDANT Chhotabhai by his written statement Ex. 18 denied the suit. He contended that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit field on the date of the suit but the possession of the field was with him. His further contentions were as follows:- as the plaintiff was unable to cultivate the suit land because of the illness he executed an agreement to sell the suit land to him on 10th June 1965 for Rs. 2900. 00. As the plaintiff was unable to pay the instalments fixed by the Tenancy Court the defendant had paid Rs. 1755. 46 in to the State Bank on 14th June 1965 on behalf of the plaintiff. The agreement of sale was acted upon and he was continued in possession of the suit field by the plaintiff. The plaintiffs suit for possession was not maintainable in view of the provisions of sec. 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 3 ) ON 11th July 1966 the defendant of the aforesaid suit namely Chhotabhai Shankerbhai also filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 124/66 against Babarbhai Narshibhai who as observed above was appointed Guardian ad litem of minor plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 142/65. According to Patel Chhotabhai the defendant Babarbhai was trying to recover the possession of the suit field on the ground that he was the guardian of Shantabhais minor sons. He was making an attempt to prepare a false record. Chhotabbai therefore filed the above suit in order to obtain a declaration that he was in actual possession of the suit field and also to obtain an in junction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. ( 4 ) THE defendant Babarbhai by his written statement Ex. 11 contested the suit. He contended that as he had no personal interest in the suit field the suit against him was not maintainable. He was only the guardian of his brothers minor sons. ( 4 ) THE defendant Babarbhai by his written statement Ex. 11 contested the suit. He contended that as he had no personal interest in the suit field the suit against him was not maintainable. He was only the guardian of his brothers minor sons. He was in possession of the suit field as guardian of minor sons of Shantabhai. He therefore contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain any relief against him. ( 5 ) BOTH the suits were disposed of by the learned Civil Judge Umreth by a common judgment. Civil Suit No. 142/65 was decreed in favour of the plaintiff whereas Civil Suit No. 124/66 filed by Chhotabhai against Babarbhai was dismissed. The decree passed by the learned Trial Judge in Civil Suit No. 124/66 was confirmed in appeal by the learned Extra Assistant Judge Nadiad. The main part of the decree of the Trial court in Regular Civil Suit No. 142/65 was confirmed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge in the following terms:-THE judgment and decree passed by the lower court in Regular Civil Suit No. 142 of 1965 declaring that the suit field is of the ownership and possession of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant has no right over it and ordering the Defendant to hand over possession of the suit field and granting permanent injunction against the Defendant restraining him from interfering with possession of the Plaintiffs of the suit field is confirmed. THE learned Extra Assistant Judge however altered the finding of the Trial court only on the question of valuation of the suit for the purpose of Pleaders fees. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Extra Assistant Judge in appeal Nos. 162 of 1969 and 163 of 1969 Patel Chhotabhai Shankerbhai. the defendant in Civil Suit No. 142/65 and the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 124/66 has come in appeal to this court. ( 6 ) FINDING of the learned Assistant Judge that Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the suits is not challenged before me. 162 of 1969 and 163 of 1969 Patel Chhotabhai Shankerbhai. the defendant in Civil Suit No. 142/65 and the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 124/66 has come in appeal to this court. ( 6 ) FINDING of the learned Assistant Judge that Civil Court had jurisdiction to hear the suits is not challenged before me. The findings of the learned Assistant Judge that on the date of Civil Suit No. 142/65 it was Chhotabhai Shankerbhai who was in possession of the suit field and that deceased Shantabhai had agreed to sell the suit field to Chhotabhai for Rs:- 2900/on 10th June 1965 and had also put him in posse ssion of the suit field and that Chhotabhai Shankerbhai had paid Rs. 1755. 46 to Shantabhai Narshibhai towards the sale price are findings of facts. The learned Advocate for the respondents has not been able to v show as to how the above findings of facts can be interfered with in these appeals. Inspite of the above findings the learned Extra Assistant Judge confirmed the decrees of the trial court as he took the view that:-EVEN though it would not be illegal for a tenant who has acquired the land under the provisions of sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act to enter into an agreement for sale of the land so acquired by him subject to the previous sanction of the Collector it would not be open for him to part with the possession of such land unless he obtains previous sanction of the Collector for the same and if he did so the man who has the entered into possession of the land would not got any protection under the provisions of sec. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act as his entry into the land is absolutely illegal and improper. HIS further observations on the point are in this case therefore as Shantabhai had parted with the possession of the suit land and put Chhotabhai in possession of the same without obtaining previous sanction of the Collector in my view Chhotabhai is not entitled to get any protection under the provisions of sec. 3-A of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 7 ) IT is not disputed that deceased Shantabhai had become the owner of the suit field on the basis of see. 32 of the Tenancy Act. 3-A of the Transfer of Property Act. ( 7 ) IT is not disputed that deceased Shantabhai had become the owner of the suit field on the basis of see. 32 of the Tenancy Act. Sec. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act which is relevant for our purpose runs as under:-43 (1 ). No land purchased by a tenant under secs. 32 32 321 320 32 or 431 or sold to any person under sec. 32p or 64 shall be transferred by sale gift exchange mortgage lease or assignment or partitioned without the previous sanction of the Collector (and except on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine.)AS regards sec. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act as observed above the learned Extra Assistant Judge has taken the view that it does not operate as a bar for the purpose of entering into an agreement for the sale of the land purchased by a tenant under any of the sections referred to in it While taking the view that deceased Shantabhai had no right to part with the possession of the suit field he has relied upon the provisions of sec. 32-R of the Tenancy Act which provides:-32 R. If at any time after the purchase of the land under any of the foregoing provisions the purchaser fails to cultivate the land personally he shall unless the Collector condones such failure for sufficient reasons be evicted and the land shall be disposed of In accordance with the provisions of sec. 84c. It is argued even by the learned advocate for the respondents that in view of sec. 32r of the Tenancy Act deceased Shantabhai could not have handed over possession of the suit field to Chhotabhai. All that sec. 32r of the Act provides is that if at any time after the purchase of the land under any of the foregoing provisions the purchaser fails to cultivate the land personally he shall unless the Collector condones such failure for sufficient reasons be evicted and the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sec. 34c. 32r of the Act provides is that if at any time after the purchase of the land under any of the foregoing provisions the purchaser fails to cultivate the land personally he shall unless the Collector condones such failure for sufficient reasons be evicted and the land shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of sec. 34c. Looking to the provision in the above section that Collector has powers to condone the failure to cultivate the land personally under certain circumstances it cannot by said that each and every case of failure to cultivate the land personally renders the purchaser liable to be evicted from the land. It is open to him to convince the Collector that he had sufficient reasons for not cultivating the land personally during certain period and in that case it will be open to the Collector to condone the failure of the person concerned to cultivate land personally. It is therefore difficult to say on the basis of the provisions of sec. 32r of the Act that a person concerned cannot hand over the possession of the land in question to other person for valid reasons. ( 8 ) IN the present case it is found from the evidence on record that deceased Shantabhai was not maintaining good health and he was suffering from tuberculosis. It is because of his illness that he had allowed Chhotabhai to cultivate the land on his behalf. Even in the agreement of sale (vide Ex. 120) deceased Shantabhai has stated that as be was not maintaining good health and was unable to do the work of cultivation he was getting the suit field cultivated by Chhotabhai Shankerbhai. He has also pointed out in the above agreement that it was Chhotabhai who was looking after him and that he had no sufficient funds to pay the instalments towards the sale price of the land. It further appears from the above agreement that Shantabhai had agreed to sell the land to Chhotabhai for Rs. 2900. 00. The amount of Rs. 1700/was already received by him and the balance of Rs. 1200/was to be paid by Chhotabhai as soon as the land was entered in his name. Shantabhai had further agreed to obtain sanction for the sale of the property from appropriate authority and to execute the sale deed in favour of Chhotabhai. 2900. 00. The amount of Rs. 1700/was already received by him and the balance of Rs. 1200/was to be paid by Chhotabhai as soon as the land was entered in his name. Shantabhai had further agreed to obtain sanction for the sale of the property from appropriate authority and to execute the sale deed in favour of Chhotabhai. It has been further made clear in the above agreement that the possession of the suit land was handed over to Chhotabhai. Shantabhai has given the reasons in the above agreement as to why he was getting the suit land cultivated by Chhotabhai. It is difficult to say at this stage that the above reasons would not have found favour with the Collector for the purpose of condoning the failure on the part of deceased Shantabhai to cultivate the land personally. It is further significant to note that there is nothing in sec. 32r of the Tenancy Act to show that it has any application to the question of the possession of the person on the basis of the agreement of sale or that the possession of such person is illegal. In view of what is stated above it cannot be said that the possession of Chhotabhai was in contravention of the provisions of sec. 32r of the Tenancy Act. Under these circumstances it is rather difficult to say that it is not open to Chhotabhai to establish his defence of part performance under sec. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. I have already pointed out that the agreement to sell the land does not contravene the provisions of sec. 43 of the Act. Relying on the decision in the case of Nathulal v. Phoolchand (A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 546) it is argued by the learned advocate for the appellant that the agreement of sale is valid and that the appellant is entitled to the defence of part performance under sec. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act on the basis of that agreement in pursuance of which he was put in possession of the suit field. In the case of Nathulal (supra) the appellant was the owner of a Ginning Factory constructed on a plot of agricultural land which stood entered in the revenue records in the name of his brother Chittarmal. In the case of Nathulal (supra) the appellant was the owner of a Ginning Factory constructed on a plot of agricultural land which stood entered in the revenue records in the name of his brother Chittarmal. On February 26 1951 the appellant Nathulal agreed to sell to Phoolchand the land and the Ginning Factory for Rs. 43011. 00. He received in part payment Rs. 22 11 and put Phoolchand in possession of the property. Phoolchand agreed to pay the balance on or before May 7 1951 On the plea that Phoolchand had failed to pay on the due date the balance of price Nathulal rescinded the contract on October 8 1951 and commenced an action in May 1954 in the court of the District Judge Nimar for a decree for possession of the land and the factory and for mesne profits from the date of delivery till possession was restored to him. Phoolchand contended that Nathulal had failed to get the name of Chittarmal deleted from the revenue record according to the terms of the agreement that he was ready and willing to pay the balance of Rs. 21,000 ( 9 ) THE trial court decreed the suit holding that Phoolchand committed breach of contract in that he had failed to pay the balance due by him on or before the due date. In appeal the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed the decree. In the appeal preferred by Nathulal the Supreme Court observed:-UNDER terms of the agreement Nathulal had undertaken to get the name of his brother Chittarmal removed from the revenue records and to get his own name entered but the lands continued to stand recorded in the name of Chittarmal till October 6 1952 and before that date Nathulal rescinded the contract. Again by virtue of sec. 70 (4) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950 Phoolchand not being an agriculturist the land could not be sold to him without the sanction of the State Government. In the absence of any specific clause dealing with this matter a condition that Nathulal will secure the sanction under sec. Again by virtue of sec. 70 (4) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950 Phoolchand not being an agriculturist the land could not be sold to him without the sanction of the State Government. In the absence of any specific clause dealing with this matter a condition that Nathulal will secure the sanction under sec. 70 (4) after paying the appropriate fee mast be implied for it is well settled that where by statute property is not transferable without the permission of the authority an agreement to transfer the property must be deemed subject to the implied condition that the transferor will obtain the sanction of the authority concerned. The argument raised by the counsel for Nathulal that by virtue of sec. 70 of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act the plea of part performance is not available to a person put in possession of the property under a contract of sale was found to be without force. The relevant observations on the point are:- sec. 70 (8) provides:-NO sale under this section shall be deemed to be valid until the sale deed effecting such a sale has been registered in accordance with the law of registration in force for the time being. But this clause only requires that not only the conditions prescribed by sec. 70 but registration of sale deed in accordance with the law of registration for the time being in force is a condition required to be complied with before a sale is deemed valid. There is no sale in the present case and Phoolchand is not relying upon any sale. He is relying upon a contract of sale and equity which he may set up to defend his possession against the claim made by Nathulal. To the making of such a claim relying upon the doctrine of part performance in sec. S3a of the Transfer of Pro perty Act there is nothing in sec. 70 (8) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950 which may operate as a bar. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the provisions of sec. 70 (4) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950 the land could not be sold to a person who is not an agriculturist without the sanction of the State Government. ( 10 ) ACCORDING to the provisions of sec. 70 (4) of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act 66 of 1950 the land could not be sold to a person who is not an agriculturist without the sanction of the State Government. The above provisions seem to a certain extent similar to those of sec. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act so far as the question sanction for 8ale is concerned. It was open to deceased Shantabhai to obtain permission of the Collector even after he had executed the agreement of sale in favour of Chhotabhai. There is thus nothing in sec. 43 (1) of the Tenancy Act to show that agreement of sale cannot be entered into before obtaining a sanction of the Collector. This shows that the agreement of sale in question is legal and valid. It is therefore open to Chhotabhai to raise the defence of part performance under sec. 53a of the Transfer of Property Act. Appeals allowed:- Leave to appeal refused. .