1. This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for recovery of possession of an enclosure and of the buildings in it has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The facts are simple. Defendant 2 and the plaintiffs were cosharers in a village and defendant 2 was the owner of the buildings in question. As a result of the partition in the revenue Court under Section 118, Land Revenue Act, the site of the building which belonged to defendant 2 was assigned to the kura of the plaintiffs. The provision in that section is that the cosharer shall be allowed to retain the land occupied by his dwelling house and other buildings with the building therein on condition of his paying for it a reasonable ground rent to the cosharer in whose portion it may be included. Accordingly defendant 2 remained in occupation of his house. The present case has arisen because defendant 2 executed a sale-deed of the enclosure and the buildings in suit dated 23rd January 1927 in favour of defendant 1. The plaintiff-appellant contends that defendant 2 has no right to transfer either the site or the buildings. The lower appellate Court has found that defendant 2 had no right to transfer the site, and has granted a declaration that plaintiff is owner of the site. The plaintiff-appellant has come in second appeal asking for the relief of possession on the allegation that defendant 2 had no right to transfer the buildings. The situation, before the partition was that defendant 2 was the owner of the building and the site. The effect of the partition was to transfer the site to the plaintiffs. There is nothing whatever in Section 118, Land Revenue Act to affect the ownership by defendant 2 of the buildings. Accordingly we consider that defendant 2 remained owner of the buildings. There is no restriction on the right of an owner of a building to transfer that building. The learned vakil for the appellant relied on certain rulings which deal with the rights of agricultural tenants to transfer buildings occupied by them in an agricultural village. In our opinion, those rulings have no application to the present ease. Under Section 6, T.P. Act the owner of property may transfer it unless there is some legal restriction to the contrary. In the present case no such restriction is shown. Accordingly we consider that the decree of the lower appellate Court is correct and dismiss this appeal under Order 41, Rule 11.