JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Murlidhar Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant. Sri Ajendra Kumar, has appeared for the defendants respondents. 2. The plaintiff appellant has preferred this second appeal after losing the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 5.6.1996 in the Courts below. 3. The Courts below in refusing specific performance have decreed the suit for the alternate relief of refund of earnest money. 4. Sri Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff appellant has argued that the Courts below in exercising the discretion under Section 20 of the Act have not considered the impact of Section 131-B of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 read with Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 5. The Courts below found that the land in dispute was the Bhumidhari land with non-transferable rights of the defendants respondents, therefore, it was not liable to be transferred. Thus, it refused the decree of specific performance while exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Act. 6. The land which cannot be transferred in law cannot be ordered to be transferred by the decree of the Court. The Courts below have therefore rightly refused to decree the suit for specific performance. The refusal is based upon sound judicial principle as no land cannot be transferred against the law. 7. Section 131-B of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 no doubt provides that a Bhumidhar with non-transferable rights after 10 years shall acquire rights to transfer the property but the lis has to be decided on the basis of the rights which are possessed by the parties at the relevant time and not on assumptions and presumptions of future rights. Therefore, Section 131-B of the said Act is of no help to the plaintiff appellant. 8. Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act contemplates that where any transfer of a immovable property has been made by an unauthorised person fraudulently or erroneously by depicting himself to be the owner of the property though he was not the owner at the relevant time such transfer shall at the option of the transferee operate as an interest in the ownership rights which the transferor may acquire subsequently. 9. The aforesaid provision applies in the cases of transfer by unauthorised person. An agreement to sell is not a transfer of rights in the immovable property. 9. The aforesaid provision applies in the cases of transfer by unauthorised person. An agreement to sell is not a transfer of rights in the immovable property. Section 54 of the said Act specifically provides that contract of sale of immovable property does not by itself create any interest in or charge on any property. Therefore, the plaintiff appellant cannot be recognised as a transfree unless there is actual sale. The right to exercise any option contemplated under Section 43 of the Act is available to the transfree only and not to a person with an agreement in his favour. 10. In the present case, there was only an agreement to sell and not actual transfer of the property. Therefore, Section 43 of the Act does not come into play. 11. In addition to above, the Courts below have concurrently held while deciding issue No. 6 that the suit was barred by time. The finding on the said issue is a finding of fact which has not be assailed on any legal ground. 12. In view of the above, the plaintiff appellant was not even entitle to the decree of refund of earnest money. Therefore, omission to award interest on the amount ordered to be refunded is not material and fatal. 13. Accordingly, I find no good reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below in refusing to decree the suit for specific performance. 14. The appeal as such no merit and is dismissed. ———————