An agreement for reconveyance is not a transfer of interest in the land and is not hit by s. 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. The rule against perpetuity does not apply to personal agreements which do not create an interest in property. The minor's guardian can enter into a contract for his benefit and the doctrine of mutuality is abolished by s. 20(4) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 124 of 1971 reversing those passed by the learned Munsif at Baruipur in Title Suit No. 343 of 1968. The plaintiff/appellant filed the said suit against the defendant/respondents for specific performance of contract for sale. The plaintiff's case was that the plaintiff sold 11/112 decimals of land described in the schedule to the plaint to defendant nos. 2 and 3 by a Kobala dated 6.6.64 (Ext. A2). Defendant nos. 2 and 3 in turn executed a deed of agreement (Ext. 1) stipulating that the defendant would recovery the property to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 200/- if they wanted to sell the said property. Defendant no. 3 transferred his share in the disputed property to Ashit and Netai in terms of the compromise decree in Title Suit no. 459 of 1965. Defendant no. 2 sold his share to defendant no. 1 by a Kobala. The plaintiff's case was that under the agreement dated 6.6.64, the plaintiff was entitled to get the property from the transferee defendant no. 1.

2. Defendant no. 1 contested the suit by filing a written statement in which it was pleaded inter alia that the agreement could not be split up for specific performance and that the was a bona fide purchaser without notice of the agreement and the contract could not be enforced against her. It was further pleaded that the agreement was void as the plaintiff executed it while he was a minor.

3. The learned Munsif held that the agreement for reconveyance being executed by the father and natural guardian of the plaintiff for his benefit the contract was valid and binding upon the plaintiff. He further held that it was a personal covenant and not a restraint on alienation within the meaning of s. 10 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further held that the defendant no. 1 purchased the suit property from the defendant no. 2 with notice of the said agreement and therefore the contract was enforceable against him. The learned Munsif therefore, passed a decree for specific performance of contract in part upon payment of proportionate consideration of Rs. 100/-.

4. The learned Subordinate Judge who heard the appeal preferred by the defendants held that the plaintiff was not entitled to split up the claim and specific performance of the contract in part. He further held that the defendant no. 1 was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. He further held that it was not within the competence either of the Manager of the minor's estate or of the guardian of the minor to bind the minor or minor'" estate by a contract of purchase and as the minor was not bound by the contract, there was no mutuality and that consequently the minor could not obtain specific performance of contract. He further held that though the agreement was not a transfer and it was not hit by s. 14 of the Transfer of Property Act, still the principle of the rule against perpetuity would apply as regards the agreement for sale or resale. He held that the agreement was void under the rule against perpetuity. The learned Subordinate Judge accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

5. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the appellant has challenged all the aforesaid findings of the learned Subordinate Judge. He has contended that the contract for reconveyance being not a transfer of interest in the land is not hit by s. 10 of the Transfer of Property Act nor cannot be said to offend the rule against perpetuity. He has further contended that the agreement being entered by father and natural guardian of the plaintiff for his benefit was binding on him and the plaintiff could, therefore, enforce the contract and that after enactment of sub-s. (4) of S. 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, there is no scope for contending that the doctrine