JUDGMENT This is defendant No. 2, Munnalal's Second Appeal and the facts leading to this appeal are as follows : 2. The defendant No. 1 Kashibai wife of Wasudeo Duberkar agreed to sell her house No. 49-50 in Imli Bazar to the plaintiff for Rs. 6,000/-. On 17-1-1946, Rs. 300/- were paid by way of earnest money and the sale was to be registered in 21 days, i.e., on or before the 7th February 1946. In the agreement of sale Ex. P1, it was further stated that in case the plaintiff failed to abide by his agreement the earnest money would be forfeited. The time for formal registration which was originally fixed on 7-2-1946, was further extended to 15-2-1946 vide endorsement on Ex. P/1 with the consent of both the parties. Then with the consent of both the parties it was further extended to 15-3-1946. Ultimately on 4-9-1946 the pltff. Zammaklal filed a suit for recovering back his earnest money because he came to know that the defendant Kashibai was only a limited owner of the property and that one Malhari Duberkar who claimed to be the reversioner questioned the right of Kashibai to sell the property and therefore the plaintiff declined to carry out the agreement and asked for the return of the earnest money. On 25-5-1946 Kashibai defendant No. 1 sold the house to one Munnalal defendant No. 2 in the present suit. Zammaklal therefore filed suit for recovery of Rs. 312-3-0, inclusive of interest from the defendants from the property sold. 3. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal the District Judge reversed the Judgment and decree of trial Court and decreed the plaintiff's suit against defendant No. 1 Kashibai personally and against defendant No. 2 as a charge on the property. The defendant No. 2 Munnalal has come up in second appeal. 4. The only question in this appeal is whether the buyer, i.e., the plaintiff is entitled to recover back the earnest money. Now Section 55, Clause 6 (b) of the Transfer of Property Act states that when the buyer properly declines to accept the delivery then he is entitled to recover back his earnest money. 4. The only question in this appeal is whether the buyer, i.e., the plaintiff is entitled to recover back the earnest money. Now Section 55, Clause 6 (b) of the Transfer of Property Act states that when the buyer properly declines to accept the delivery then he is entitled to recover back his earnest money. It is further stated that unless the buyer has improperly declined to accept the delivery of this property he is entitled to a charge on the property as against the seller and all persons claiming under him to the extent of the seller's interest in the property for the amount of any purchase money properly paid by the buyer in anticipation of the delivery. Hence it appears that the buyer does not lose his charge under Section 55, Clause 6 (b) of the Transfer of Property Act unless he has improperly declined to accept the delivery. Now in this case it would appear that the plaintiff was informed by defendant Kashibai who wanted to sell the property that her husband has left no relation and that she is the absolute owner of the property and subsequently it turned out that one Malhari was a reversioner. This cast a clog on the plaintiff's title and consequently the plaintiff extended the date for a formal registered conveyance. Then the plaintiff Zammaklal in his re-examination stated that he agreed to extend the time because the defendant Kashibai stated that she would obtain the signature of Malhari on the sale-deed. She failed to do so and therefore the plaintiff did not want to purchase. The house which would involve him in any litigation. 'TULSIDAS v. PRITBAI', AIR 1943 Sind 92, it was held that where the seller's title would be doubtful and where there is reasonable probability of litigation in respect of the property agreed to be purchased, the plaintiff would be quite correct in declining to carry through the transaction of purchase and declining to accept the delivery. The Court will not force a doubtful title on the purchaser. Here the plaintiff made an effort that if Malhari would sign the registered sale-deed he is prepared to take the delivery of the house but that was also refused. The Court will not force a doubtful title on the purchaser. Here the plaintiff made an effort that if Malhari would sign the registered sale-deed he is prepared to take the delivery of the house but that was also refused. Under these circumstances the plaintiff was perfectly justified in not accepting the delivery and he has got a charge on the property sold on the application of Section 55, Clause 6 (b). Therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower Court is quite correct. 5. I would dismiss the appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.