JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member. - This is a plaintiff second appeal under Section 331 of U.P. Act No. 1951 against the judgment and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad dated 5.4.1984 allowing the appeal of the defendant-respondent Mohd. Saleem Khan and others against the judgment and decree passed by Assistant Collector 1st Class, Sultanpur dated 27.6.1981 whereby the plaintiff suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951 was decreed. 2. Plaintiffs' case is that the disputed land was Bjumidhar of defendant No. 3 Smt. Ram Dulari, Smt. Ram Dulari who by professing herself to be sole Bhumidhar of the land transferred the same to the plaintiff through a registered sale-deed on 7.6.1965 in lieu of Rs. 6,000 and delivered possession. However, on account of some mistake defendant's name continued in the papers alongwith the plaintiff even though she had no title. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed to be declared sole Bhumidhar. In the alternative it was also pleaded that even if Smt. Ram Dulari was not absolute owner if she subsequently acquired the title of the remaining share also then in that event the same sale-deed would be binding upon her under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No. 4 Salauddin Khan and Mohd. Salim Khan who were impleaded on their own prayer. Their defence is that originally the land belong to Smt. Balwanta and his son Ram Deo who was husband of Ram Dulari. They were recorded as co-sirdars. Ram Deo died leaving his mother and widow namely Smt. Balwanta and Smt. Ram Dulari as his heirs, hence the share of Smt. Balwanta became th and that of Ram Dulari remained 1.4th and both of them were recorded as co-tenants. Plaintiff obtained a sale-deed from Smt. Ram Dulari who could transfer only th share and the factum of her co-tenancy alongwith Smt. Balwanta was within the knowledge of plaintiff. It was denied that Smt. Ram Dulari inherited share of the former and transferred the same to the defendant by a registered sale-deed on 4.6.1979 in lieu of Rs. 13,000 and put into them in possession and they are purchaser for valuable consideration. The defendant, therefore claimed th share and in any event alleged to be having at least half share. 4. 13,000 and put into them in possession and they are purchaser for valuable consideration. The defendant, therefore claimed th share and in any event alleged to be having at least half share. 4. The trial Court framed six issues and decreed the plaintiffs' suit, but on appeal that judgment was reversed ans the suit was dismissed. Learned Additional Commissioner held that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 both have half share each. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for both the parties. Perused the record. 6. It is proved form the record that Smt. Balwanta and her son Ram Deo were co-sirdar and that Ram Deo died leaving his mother and his widow Smt. Ram Dulari as his heir. The names of Ram Dulari and Smt. Balwanta, therefore came to be recorded as co-tenants. As it is evident from Khatauni of 1356 and 1365 Fasli one Smt. Dulhan widow of Ram Autar Singh is also recorded as their co-tenant over two plots namely 326/1 and 365. It is, therefore, obvious that Smt. Balwanta and Smt. Ram Dulari were co-tenants. 7. It was, therefore, argued on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff that even though Smt. Ram Dulari did not have absolute title on 7.6.1965 when she executed the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff but on the death of Smt. Balwanta she become the sole Bhumidhar because she inherited the share of Smt. Balwanta, therefore, by virtue of Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act when she acquired a title later on the same would be deemed to have passed on the transferee who have paid consideration for the whole share. 8. As against this argument learned counsel for the appellant argued that Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could have been applicable only when fraud or mis-representation have been played by the transferor had full knowledge of the title of the transfer as is exited on the date of transfer then in that case section 43 would not be applicable and no benefit can be accrued by the plaintiff. 9. In my opinion this argument is not without force. The Khatauni mentioned aforesaid clearly indicate that the names of Smt. Balwanta and Smt. Ram Dulari Both are recorded as co-tenants in the Khatauni on the date of the transfer executed by Smt. Ram Dulari. 9. In my opinion this argument is not without force. The Khatauni mentioned aforesaid clearly indicate that the names of Smt. Balwanta and Smt. Ram Dulari Both are recorded as co-tenants in the Khatauni on the date of the transfer executed by Smt. Ram Dulari. It cannot be believed that the purchaser had not looked into the entries of Khatauni before making the bargain and, therefore, it cannot be believed that she did not know at the time of the sale-deed that Smt. Balwanta was a co-tenant alongwith Smt. Ram Dulari. In case the defendant did not look into the Katauni at that time then also she is to blame herself because the principle of caveat emptor would apply against her. There was, therefore, no question of mis-representation or fraud having been played by the transferor to the plaintiff and the latter obtained the sale-deed fully knowingly Smt. Ram Dulari to be a co-tenant of Smt. Balwanta and not a sole Bhumidhar. She, therefore, got a transfer only that sharer from Smt. Ram Dulari which the later are herself enjoyed. In such circumstances on the death of Smt. Balwanta when Smt. Ram Dulari succeeded to the latters interest no benefit would accrue to the former purchaser namely plaintiff about the share so acquired on succession by Smt. Ram Dulari and, therefore, she cannot be held to be sole Bhumidhar of the disputed land. The trial court failed to examine this legal position correctly and decreed the plaintiffs' suit erroneously. Its Judgment and decree was rightly reversed by the learned Additional Commissioner. 10. This appeal too has no force and it accordingly dismissed.