JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Defendant No. 4 in a suit for specific performance and injunction is in appeal against the reversing judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge at Jeypore. The suit was filed on 28-11-1974 on the allegation that Defendants 1 to 3, owners of the disputed property - forty decimals of cultivable land as described in the plaint schedule - mortgaged the disputed property with the Plaintiff on 8-8-1971 (Ext. 1) as security for the loan of Rs. 320/- undertaking to repay the loan by January, 1972; and failing repayment they undertook to sell the property to the Plaintiff for Rs. 400/-. Defendants 1 to 3 failed to repay and omitted to execute the sale deed. Therefore, the suit was filed. 2. Defendant No. 4 alone contested. He claimed that there was no binding and enforceable contract. He was a bonafide purchaser for value without notice under a registered sale deed dated 2.4.1973 (Ext. C) and Plaintiff was not entitled to relief. 3. The trial Court held that Defendant No. 4 was a bonafide purchaser for value and dismissed the suit. The lower appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the suit, and this reversal is assailed in second appeal. 4. At the hearing, Mr. Ramdas for the Appellant raises a new question of law not raised earlier namely the suit is hit by Section 40(2) of the Orissa Land Reforms Act and should not have been entertained. As the point is out and out a legal one and no fact is necessary to be investigated, leave has been granted to the Appellant under Order 42, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 40(1) of the Act prohibits transfer and partition of land except with written permission of the Revenue Officer and declares that partition or transfer without permission is void. Sub-section (2) provides: Every suit for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of land, instituted after the 26th day of September, 1970 and before the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 shall abate and no suit for the specific performance of any such contract entered into before such commencement shall be maintainable. 5. Sub-section (2) provides: Every suit for the specific performance of a contract for the transfer of land, instituted after the 26th day of September, 1970 and before the commencement of the Orissa Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 shall abate and no suit for the specific performance of any such contract entered into before such commencement shall be maintainable. 5. There is no dispute that the agreement in question answers the requirement; but it is contended that unless the Defendants to 3 had lands in excess of the ceiling area, the mischief did not operate. I am not inclined to agree with the submission Legislative intention is clear and it is this - after the prescribed date no alienation should take place so as to defeat the provisions of the Act. Mr. Ramdas relied on a single judge decision of this Court in S.A. No. 161 of 1977 disposed of on 2-1-1979, which completely supports him. Words in Section 40(2) are quite intelligible and there is no ambiguity. Plain construction is the rule. 6. I must, therefore, bold that suit had abated. The judgment and decree of the appellate Court are vacated and the suit is dismissed. Parties shall bear their respective costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed