JUDGMENT 1. THE plaintiff has alleged that the disputed tank and its bank belonged to the defendant Gobardhan Mahato. On the 3rd September, 1965, the latter executed a deed of agreement in his favour contracting to sell the disputed property to him for Rs. 1,000/- within chaitra, 1374 B.S. and took an earnest money of Rs. 700/ -. But he declined to execute a kobala He fraudulently transferred the property to the defendants nos. 2 and 3. Those two defendants were aware of such agreement made with him. Hence the defendants nos. 2 and 3 are bound by the agreement entered into with the plaintiff. The suit is for specific performance of contract. There is an alternative prayer for recovery if Rs. 1,000/- as damages. 2. THE defendant no1 died during the pendency of the suit and his heirs were brought on the record. The defendants filed a written statement denying the story of such agreement It has been stated that the defendants no. 2 and 3 are bonafide purchasers for value without notice of the plaintiff's alleged agreement. The learned Munsif considered the matter accepted the plaintiffs version and decreed the suit. He took care to state that in case the Deputy Commissioner, Puralia, did not accord permission to sell the property, the plaintiff would get Rs. 1,000/- as damages. 3. THE defendants preferred an appeal and lost the same on the merits. But the learned Subordinate Judge stated that the claim for recovery of damages was excessive and hence the decree was modified and damages assessed at Rs. 800/- only. The appeal was, therefore, allowed in part. Hence this appeal by the defendant. 4. TWO-FOLD submissions have been made on behalf of the appellant. It has been stated that the plaintiff was a cosharer of the disputed tank and hence, it is immaterial whether he exercised possession in the property from her. The defendants nos. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for value, without notice. They had no knowledge of the agreement arrived at between Gobardhan and the plaintiff. Sc, the appeal should be allowed. It has been next contended that the alleged agreement was arrived at with the plaintiff without obtaining any permission from the Deputy commissioner, Purulia. The defendant no. 2 and 3 are bona fide purchasers for value, without notice. They had no knowledge of the agreement arrived at between Gobardhan and the plaintiff. Sc, the appeal should be allowed. It has been next contended that the alleged agreement was arrived at with the plaintiff without obtaining any permission from the Deputy commissioner, Purulia. The defendant no. 1 (Gobardhan) is an aboriginal and hence there' was an absolute bar on his power to sell the property or to enter into any deed of agreement to transfer the same. Hence, the court should find that such alleged agreement is void abinitio. The final, court of fact has stated that the story of the plaintiff's agreement is true and. the defendants nos. 2 and 3 had knowledge of the plaintiff's agreement. That court further found that those defendants were not bonafide purchasers for value without notice. This finding of fact cannot be challenged in second appeal. 5. THEN about the question of law. Reference may be made to the provisions of sections 49b, 49f and 49g of the Bengal Tenancy Act to show that regarding Santhals and other aboriginals, there is a restriction on their power of transfer. But there is no restriction whatever regarding their power to enter into an agreement to transfer the property. So, this distinction must not be lost sight of in arriving at a decision on this important question. It will be pertinent to point out that according to the provisions of section 54 of. the Transfer of Property act, a contract for sale does not? create any interest in the same. An agreement to transfer the property is also hot compulsorily registrable document Within the meaning of the provisions of section 17 (1) or the Indian Registration act. So, even if an agreement to transfer the property is registered, still. such registration will not operate as notice to the other side because section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act can be availed of in this regard where the deed is compulsorily registrable. 6. BUT the fact remains that the defendant no. 1, Gobardhan, was a mahato. According to the provisions of the section 14c of the West Bengal land Reforms Act, a transfer is permissible by a scheduled tribe only with the written previous permission of the Revenue Officer. 6. BUT the fact remains that the defendant no. 1, Gobardhan, was a mahato. According to the provisions of the section 14c of the West Bengal land Reforms Act, a transfer is permissible by a scheduled tribe only with the written previous permission of the Revenue Officer. It has been pointed out on behalf of the respondent that by the West bengal Act XXI of 1961, section 46 of the Chotonagpur Tenancy Act of 1908 was amended. Section 46 of the Act underwent important amendment because section 46 (1) of the amended. Act clearly says that subject to the provisions of section 46a, the holding of a raiyat shall be transferable. But the old section 46 (1) says that no transfer by a raiyat of his right in his holding or any portion thereof by sale deed or other contract or agreement shall be valid to any extent. Since the words "or any other contract or agreement" appearing in section 46 (1) of the unamended Act, was amended by the state, there is no longer any bar to enter into any contract or agreement to transfer any holding by a raiyat. Had the case been governed by the unamended section 46 (1) of the Act, there would have been an absolute bar to enter into an agreement to transfer the property. 7. SECTION 46a of the amended act says that except in the following cases, the transfer of his holding by a raiyat belonging to the Kurmi (Mahato)Community, a scheduled tribe or a schedule caste shall be void (a) a transfer to a person belonging to the community, tribe or caste, to which the transferor belongs (b) a transfer" to a person not belonging to the community, tribe or caste, to which the transferor belongs, when such permission is made with the previous permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner. 8. IT has already been indicated that the learned Munsif took the precaution of decreeing the suit for specific performance by stating that the execution of the deed of sale by the defendant would be dependent on the permission to be obtained from the Deputy Commissioner, Purulia. He stated that the alternative prayer for damages would be allowed if the prayer was refused. This direction is correct. He stated that the alternative prayer for damages would be allowed if the prayer was refused. This direction is correct. In the case of Chandni Wati v. C. Kotial, A.I.R. 1964 SC 978, there was a contract for sale of a house on a plot granted by the Government The term was that the vendor would obtain necessary permission from the Government before making the sale. The vender put in such application to obtain a permission from the Government. But subsequently that petition was withdrawn. It was held that the contract was not a contingent one and the parties had agreed to bind themselves by the terms of the document executed between them. The court had to enforce the, terms of the contract and to enjoin Upon the vendor to make a necessary application for per mission. The Supreme Court further stated that in the event of permission being refused, the vendee would be en titled to damages. Actually, this was done in this case as indicated previously. Hence, the submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be sustained. It must be held that the contract to transfer the property is not void and the plaintiff can enforce the same in a, court of law. The appeal be dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed, no costs.