Short Note : 1. The facts briefly stated are that the plaintiff, which is a firm bearing the name ‘Chhotabhai Jethatbhai Pattel’, entered into a contract with the defendant firm Bansilal Ramratandas for purchase of 4.50 acres of Malik Makbuza land and buildings standing on it on 4th August 1956 for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000. A sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid as Bayana. The property in respect to which the agreement was entered into is situated in Charital Ward, Jabalpur. The agreement to purchase the said property is in writing which is Ex P-2. According to the plaintiff's case, the defendant did not satisfy the plaintiff about its title in respect of the said property and later sold the property to other persons. The plaintiff alleged breach of contract by the defendant and sued for refund of consideration. Held : It is not disputed before us that the Khasra panchsala for the year 1955-56 does not show that the land was held in Malik-Makbuza right by the defendant. Further, in this document the area of Khasra No. 209/1 is shown less by 0.03 acre. The finding of the trial Court that there was a garden on the land open to the public is also not disputed before us. 2. From the notices to which we have earlier referred and from the fact that the Khasra Panchsala for the year 1955-56 did not show that the defendant held the land in Malik-Makbuza right and was the owner of 4.50 acres it is clear to us that the doubts raised by the plaintiff in its notice Ex. D-4 were quite reasonable Under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act, the seller is bound to produce to the buyer all documents of title relating to the property which ate in the seller's possession or power. Under clause (c) the seller is also bound to answer to the best of his information all relevant questions put to him by the buyer in respect of the property or the title thereto. It is clear from the notices exchanged between the parties that the plaintiff was within its rights to put the queries which are in the notice Ex. D-4 and to seek information in respect of those queries. The defendant did not reply to those queries and terminated the contract and forfeited the earnest money. It is clear from the notices exchanged between the parties that the plaintiff was within its rights to put the queries which are in the notice Ex. D-4 and to seek information in respect of those queries. The defendant did not reply to those queries and terminated the contract and forfeited the earnest money. In these circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be held guilty of breach of contract and it must be held that the defendant was not entitled to forfeit the earnest money. In our opinion the trial Court was right in decreeing the suit. Appeal dismissed.