Short Note : Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the present suit with the allegations against the defendant that he is refusing to execute the sale deed for 3.25 acres of Khasra numbers 719/1 Chh, 719/1-J and 719/7 located in village Kandrikalan inspite of an agreement (Ex. P-l) dated 9-4-1963 between the parties to sell that part of the land for a consideration of Rs. 1,300. The plaintiff secured possession of 3.25 acres of land of the above mentioned Khasra numbers from the defendant after giving him Rs. 700 as an earnest money in pursuauce of that agreement and the balance of Rs. 600 was paid on 9-5-1963 which was also acknowledged by the respondent on the back of the agreement (Ex. P-I). Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for specific performance of contract and also for restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession of the suit land. 2. The defendant denied the execution of agreement (Ex. P-l) and also receiving Rs. 1,300 as a sale consideration. His case was that there was a transaction of loan of Rs. 200 and he being illiterate, the plaintiff got the agreement, Ex. P-I, executed from him as a receipt of that amount by playing fraud. It was also contended that the suit-lands being ancestral and belonging to the joint family consisting of himself, his sons and brother, he alone had no right to alienate the same. He also pleaded that the agreement (Ex. P-l) was hit by section 165 (4) of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, 1959. 3. The trial Court though dismissed the suit for the relief of specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction but it held the plaintiff entitled for the refund of Rs. 700 from the defendant as further payment of Rs. 600 towards agreement (Ex. P-I) was not proved. According to that Court no doubt the defendant entered into an agreement (Ex. P-I) with the plaintiff for the sate of the suit land but the transaction was hit by the provisions of section 165 (4) (b) of the Code. The lower appellate Court on appeal preferred by the plaintiff reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. It held that the defendant not only received Rs. 700 but also subsequently Rs. 600 from the plaintiff making Rs. 1300 as the sale consideration. The lower appellate Court on appeal preferred by the plaintiff reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit. It held that the defendant not only received Rs. 700 but also subsequently Rs. 600 from the plaintiff making Rs. 1300 as the sale consideration. The said Court also found the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land as proved. Therefore, the lower appellate Court directed the defendant to execute the sale deed, failing which the Court will execute the same. The said Court also restrained the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land Hence, the present second appeal by the defendant. 4. Held : The lower appellate Court has taken the view that as section 165 (4) (b) of the Code was omitted by section 15 of the Act No. 25 of 1964 the restriction which was then existed on the date of the agreement (Ex. P-1) ceased to exist and as such the impediment which was there with regard to the transfer of the agricultural land held under Bhumiswami rights having ceased to exist, the plaintiff was entitled to sue for specific performance of contract. In my opinion the approach of the lower appellate Court in this regard was not correct. The plaintiff's suit was for enforcement of the agreement (Ex. P-I) dated 9-4-1963 and at that time section 165 (4) (b) of the Code was in existence. The subsequent deletion of that sub-section could be held to have removed the restriction which existed at the time of the execution of that agreement being not retrospective in the operation. It was tried to be contended on behalf of the defendant that the provision of section 165 (4) (b) of the Code related to the transfer of the land and not regarding entering into an agreement. Therefore, the agreement (Ex. P-1) could not be held to be void. The submission is devoid of any substance. The plaintiff filed the present suit for the enforcement of the agreement (Ex. P-1) and as such it has to be seen when that agreement was entered into between the parties, was it permissible. After all the right to the plaintiff would flow only on the basis of that agreement. The submission is devoid of any substance. The plaintiff filed the present suit for the enforcement of the agreement (Ex. P-1) and as such it has to be seen when that agreement was entered into between the parties, was it permissible. After all the right to the plaintiff would flow only on the basis of that agreement. If that agreement was void it would not make any difference in view of the wordings of section 165 (4) (b) of the Code, which relate to a transfer. In the instant case when the agreement (Ex. P-1) was entered into between the parties section 165 (4) (b) clearly prohibited a Bhumiswami to transfer an area from his holding which would reduce the area of that holding below 5 acres of irrigated or 10 acres of unirregated lands. Here, it was not disputed that the total holding in the hands of the joint family were 6.18 acres in area out of which 3.25 acres were alienated, reducing the holding below 10 acres. Therefore, the agreement (Ex. P-1) was contrary to the provisions of section 165 (4) (b) of the Code and as such was void in terms of section 23 of the Contract Act. In the circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to obtain a decree for specific performance of contract by virtue of the provisions of section 12 of the Old Specific Relief Act. Differing from the lower appellate Court I hold that the plaintiff's suit was wrongly decreed by that Court. 5. Appeal partly allowed.