VENKATA LAKSHMI NARASAYYA Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is found by the lower Appellate Court that the purchaser was fully aware of the interest of the co-widow of his vendor at the time of the purchase and that, accordingly, there was no erroneous representation to the purchaser that his vendor was authorized to transfer the interest of her co-widow.

(2.) The purchaser, therefore, accepted a sale-deed which he was aware did not transfer the interest which it purported to deal with. He was, therefore, not misled in any way and Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, which is founded on the principles of estoppel, does not apply. Pandiri Bangaram v. Karumoory Subbaraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 : 34 M. 159 at p. 161 : 8 M.L.T. 285 The decision in Adikesavan Naidu v. Gurunatha Chetti 39 Ind. Cas. 358 : 40 M. 338 : 32 M.L.J. 180 : (1917) M.W.N. 171 : 5 L.W. 425 : 22 M.L.T. 300 does not in any way affect Jandir Bangarnm v. Katumoory Subbraju 8 Ind. Cas. 388 : 34 M. 159 at p. 161 : 8 M.L.T. 285.

(3.) The second appeal is dismissed with costs.