A contract for the sale of immovable property does not create an interest in the property, thus subsequent purchasers cannot confer title over what has already been sold.

JUDGMENT

Challenge in this second appeal is made as against the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2011 passed in A.S.No.1 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.10 of 2006 dated 30.10.2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

3.The plaintiff in O.S.No.10 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Court, Hosur is the appellant herein.

4.1. The case of the plaintiff, in brevity, is that the subject suit property originally belonged to one Fathima Bi, wife of Bakkodu @ Imam Sahib. Fathima Bi and Imam Sahib died in the year 1979 and in 1991 respectively, leaving their children Rasool Sahib, Samsuddin Sahib, Roshan Bi and Maqbul Bi, as their legal heirs to succeed the suit properties as per the Muslim Law.

4.2. Consequently, Rasool Sahib and samsuddin Sahib were entitled to 1/3rd share each in the suit land and Roshan Bi and Maqbul Bi were entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit land as per the Muslim Law. Rasool Sahib, Samsuddin Sahib, Roshan Bi and Maqbul Bi were in joint possession and enjoyment of the subject suit properties as co-owners.

4.3. Subsequent thereto, Samsuddin Sahib sold his share of 1/3rd of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff vide a registered Sale Deed dated 12.05.1992 for a valuable consideration amount of Rs.37,300/-, entitling the plaintiff to take possession of the 1/3rd of the share in the subject suit property. The plaintiff, Rasool Sahib, Roshan Bi and Maqbul Bi enjoyed joint possession of the subject suit property as co-owners thereof.

4.4. Thereafter, in the year 1994, the defendants claim to have purchased the suit lands from Rasool Sahib, Samsuddin Sahib, Roshan Bi and Maqbul Bi under a registered Sale Deed dated 04.03.1994 and took possession of the suit property. After taking possession, the defendants attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, but taking note of the registered sale deed dated 12.05.1992, the defendants, realizing the folly of getting the sale deed from Samsuddin, though Samsuddin already conveyed his share of 1/3rd of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff, accepted the plaintiff as a co-owner and continued the joint possession and enjoyment of the suit land.

4.5. After efflux of time, in the year 2006, the plaintiff sought partition and separate possession of his share of 1/3rd of the subject suit property and demanded the defendants to effect partition of the suit land in the second week of January, 2006. On the strength of the registered sale deed executed in favour of the defendants, the defendants denied partition proposed by the plaintiff.

5.1. The defendant contested the suit, denied the allegations in the plaint and filed a written statement contending that, Imam Sahib, husband of Fathima Bi and his children entered into an agreement of sale on 25.06.1990, where the possession of the property was given to the defendants. Subsequently, Imam Sahib and his children refused to execute the said sale deed. After the death of Imam Sahib, the defendants filed a suit for specific performance of the registered contract between the parties in O.S.No.70 of 1992, renumbered as O.S.No.134 of

1992 on the file of Sub-Court, Krishnagiri.

5.2. In the said suit, no written statement was filed on behalf of the children of Imam Sahib and they were set ex parte. Samsuddin, the vendor of the plaintiff, was also a party in the said suit instituted before the Sub-Court at Krishnagiri and it is averred that no written statement was filed by Samsuddin in the said suit to substantiate the sale executed in favour of the plaintiff on 12.05.1992.

5.3. It is the case of the defendants that the sale deed relied by the plaintiff in the suit for partition is a fraudulent and forged document, since as per the registered agreement of sale dated 25.06.1990, the possession of the subject suit property was delivered to the defendants and the sale deed was e