PATNAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal which has been referred to the Division Bench for disposal raises the question : "whether a contract for transfer of property entered into by a marfatdar is specifically enforceable against the deity. "

( 2 ) TO appreciate the point, the facts need be briefly stated : The plaintiff asserts that property in question is the nominal private debottar of defendant No. 1, a private deity of defendants 2 and 3. In partition, the deity and the disputed property fell to the share of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. For meeting the expenses of repairs, eviction of trespassers and undesirable persons and for completion of the construction of the temple, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on 11-12-1961 entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property in respect of which the plaintiff was a tenant, for Rupees 843/ -. The property, having belonged to the Khasmahal, permission was sought from the Khasmahal authorities. Since defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not honour the agreement by executing the sale deed in spite of repeated requests by the plaintiff but made a gift of the property in favour of defendant No. 4, Durga Thakurani represented by defendants Nos. 5 and 6, the s