JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This is a plaintiffs Second Appeal arising out of the Judgement and decree of the lower appellate Court dated January 30, 1979 partly allowing the defendants appeal and directing for return of advance money paid by the plaintiff appellants to the defendant-respondents by way of earnest money. 2. As there is no dispute before me about the agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants, I need not enter into that controversy. What was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the lower appellate Court erred in interfering with the Judgement of the trial Court and for substituting the decree in respect of the return of advance money by the plaintiffs to the defendants by way of earnest money on the date of agreement. Counsel urges that on the basis of the Judgement of the lower appellate Court sirdari was transferable, therefore, the agreement entered into was enforceable in law and the plaintiff could only get a decree for money paid by him. Counsel urged that subsequently to the filing of the suit, bhumidhari right had been acquired with regard to the land in question and that on account of the applicability of principle of feeding the grant by estoppel, the defendant-respondents could not take shelter behind the plea aforesaid. 3. In my opinion, to grant a decree for specific performance r discretionary with a court and as the lower appellate court has exercised that discretion against the appellants on sound basis, there is no reason to interfere. 4. Section 129 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act defines the classes to tenure. These classes are bhumidhar, sirdar and asami. Section 131 of U.P.Z.A. and L R. Act deals with the right of the sirdar. It provides that every person belonging to any one of the classes for sirdars, the right of sirdari would be imposed upon sirdars by or under this Act. 5. Section 154 of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act confers right of sale on a bhumidhar, but no such right has been conferred on sirdar. Sirdar did not have the right to sell the property unless he gets the same conferred to a bhumidhar. In the instant case, when the agreement was entered into, admittedly, the defendants were sirdars. As sirdars, they could not enter into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent. Sirdar did not have the right to sell the property unless he gets the same conferred to a bhumidhar. In the instant case, when the agreement was entered into, admittedly, the defendants were sirdars. As sirdars, they could not enter into an agreement with the plaintiff-respondent. As such, the lower appellate Court was right in saying that the agreement was not enforceable in law. However, he took this fact into account only for a purpose of granting decree for enforcement of agreement, it directed the defendants to return the money received by them under the agreement to sell. To me, it appears that it was a perfect decree and cannot be interfered with. 6. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.