JUDGMENT Vaman Rao, J. This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the first additional District Judge, Madanapalle dated 2-8-1989 rendered in A.S. No. 288-A of 1985 under which the appeal against the judgment of the Court of the District Munsif, Thamballapalle in O.S. No. 7 of 1981 dated 4-12-1985 dismissing the suit has been allowed resulting in decreeing of the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property. 2. The parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed in the trial Court. 3. The facts relevant to his appeal may be stated briefly as follows : 4. The defendants 1, 2 and 4 are the appellants herein and the plaintiff and the third defendant are the respondents. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of plaint schedule property and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property comprising part of survey No. 192-A and part of Survey No. 341 with 6 annas share in the well situated in survey No. 341, totally measuring 1.5 acres of Gopidinne village. The plaintiff purchased this land under registered sale deed dated 10-6-1975 (Ex. Al) from one G. Nagireddy, G. Venkatareddi and another, who are brothers. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the purchase. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff and started interfering with his possession over the suit property and hence the suit. 5. The third defendant does not claim any Interest in the suit property. Defendants 1 and 2 are brothers. They contested the suit denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. They denied even the title of the plaintiff's vendors' to the suit property. In the written statement, it is averred that the suit property was a divided plot with specific boundaries as described in the suit schedule. It is averred that there are several other owners and enjoyers who are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property in Survey Nos. 192-A and 341 of Gopidinne village. It is asserted that defendants 1 and 2 purchased Ac. 1.50 cents of land in survey No. 192-A from Venkata Reddy and one Changareddy under registered gift deed in the year 1971. 192-A and 341 of Gopidinne village. It is asserted that defendants 1 and 2 purchased Ac. 1.50 cents of land in survey No. 192-A from Venkata Reddy and one Changareddy under registered gift deed in the year 1971. It is stated that they have sold away 75 cents out of this land to the fourth defendant in the year 1975. They purchased Ac. 1.25 cents in survey No. 341 from original pattadar and subsequently sold away the same to one Nagireddy. Thus, it is averred that the plaintiff's vendors' have no right, title and possession to any extent of land in survey No. 341. Thus, it is claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit schedule land and they are not entitled for declaration of their title. On the same reasoning, it is contended that they are not entitled for injunction. 6. On these pleadings, appropriate issues have been framed. On behalf of plaintiff, he examined himself as P.W. 1 and P.Ws. 2 to 5 have been examined on his behalf and Exs. Al to A5 have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 3 have been examined and Exs. B1 and B2 have been marked. Exs. Cl and C2 have been marked as Court exhibits. 7. On this material, the learned District Munsif held that the suit land which formed part of the larger extent, was not yet divided land and that the plaintiff has not acquired any title to the suit land. He has also held that the possession over the plaint schedule land was not proved and accordingly refused the relief of declaration of title and injunction. It would appear that the fact of execution of sale deed, Ex. Al, in favour of plaintiff by Venkatareddy and Nagireddy is not disputed. The learned District Munsif also appears to have held that the vendors of the plaintiff have also no title and possession over the suit land. 8. The learned District Judge in appeal did not agree with these findings. The learned District Judge held as a matter of fact that plaintiff acquired title on the basis of the sale deed Ex.A1. One of the Vendors Nagi Reddy was examined as P.W. 4 and another vendor has been examined on behalf of the defendants as DW. 3. The learned District Judge noted the fact that DW. The learned District Judge held as a matter of fact that plaintiff acquired title on the basis of the sale deed Ex.A1. One of the Vendors Nagi Reddy was examined as P.W. 4 and another vendor has been examined on behalf of the defendants as DW. 3. The learned District Judge noted the fact that DW. 3 has admitted that he affixed his thumb impression to Ex. Al but his plea was that it was obtained by fraud. In the absence of any material that any fraud was played, the learned District Judge held that DW. 3 was estopped from denying the execution of Ex. Al by him. With reference to the evidence of one of the attestors, P.W. 2, the learned District Judge also held that Ex. Al was duly executed by P.W. 4 and DW. 3. The learned District Judge has referred to the undisputed fact that the suit property was ancestral property of the plaintiffs vendors and other share holders. Both P.W. 4 and DW. 3, the vendors of the plaintiff, have stated in their evidence that the suit property was their ancestral property. In fact, the learned District Judge rightly pointed out that even the defendants claimed to have acquired title to a part of survey No. 192-A under gift deed from two of the plaintiff's vendors and in respect of survey No. 341 from other share holders of the plaintiff's vendors, It would thus appear that in reality, the title of the plaintiff's vendors to the suit property is not in dispute at all. 9. The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is (i), whether the claim of acquisition of title to any land acquired by purchase from some of the co-sharers out of the larger extent held by the vendors and other co-sharers can be challenged by the third parties, and what is the status of title of the purchaser in respect of such land? ii. The further question that arises for consideration is whether if some of the co-sharers purporting to alienate a part of the larger extent of the land, identified such extent and delivered possession to the purchaser in respect of that land, can such possession be the basis to claim injunction by the purchaser? 10. The objection seems to be that the suit property measuring Ac. 10. The objection seems to be that the suit property measuring Ac. 2.00 cents comprises of part of survey No. 192-A and Survey No. 341, which the plaintiff's vendors and other shareholders owned and possessed in all measuring about 50 acres and odd of land consisting of these two survey numbers. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that there is no pleading and there is no evidence that any extent of land in these two survey numbers was separated by partition of the properties belonging to the plaintiff' vendors and other co-sharers. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is well settled principle of law that no co-sharer can claim absolute title to any part of the land held by him along with other co sharers as joint owners. Unless there is a partition and particular piece of land is allotted to a co-sharer, every piece of land according to the learned counsel shall be presumed to belong to all the co-sharers and no co-sharer can claim exclusive title to any piece of land. It is true that this is the law on the question of title of co-sharers in respect of land jointly held by them. However, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that this is a matter between the co-sharers and this does not prevent a co-sharer to alienate a part of the land belonging to all the co-sharers. The contention is that it is the co-sharers who can object to such an alienation and a third party having nothing to do with the co-sharers can have no objection to such an alienation. 11. In this case, as found by the learned District Judge with reference to the evidence of the Commissioner who has been examined as P.W. 3 and the report of the Commissioner, which has been marked as Ex. C1 and the plan prepared by the Commissioner as Ex. C2 that two acres of land out of survey Nos. 192-A and 341 has been carved out of those two survey numbers as a separate piece of land with identifiable boundaries and ridges. The learned District Judge on appreciation of oral evidence and the evidence consisting of kist receipts Exs. A2 and A3 and A4 held that, in fact, the plaintiff has been in possession of this piece of two acres of land carved out of survey Nos. The learned District Judge on appreciation of oral evidence and the evidence consisting of kist receipts Exs. A2 and A3 and A4 held that, in fact, the plaintiff has been in possession of this piece of two acres of land carved out of survey Nos. 192-A and 341. The learned District Judge rightly pointed out that the defendants though deny title of the plaintiff to suit land, have not set up any rival title as far as this piece of land is concerned, Apparently, the defendants acquired title to some land out of survey Nos. 192-A under gift deed, Ex. A2, which is a separate piece of land not connected with the two acres claimed by the plaintiff. 12. The real objection to the title of the plaintiff as stated above is that what has been purchased by the plaintiff from some of the charers being a part of the larger extend of the land held by their vendors and other co-sharers, he cannot claim title to the specific piece of land. 13. Section 44 of the Transfer of property Act provides that where one of two or more cowers of immovable property legally competent in that behalf transfers his share of such property or any interest therein, the transferee acquires, as to such share or interest, and so far as is necessary to give effect to the transfer, the transferor's right to joint possession or other common or part enjoyment of the property, and to enforce a partition of the same, but subject to the conditions and liabilities affecting, at the date of the transfer, the share or interest so transferred. 14. In view of this provision, it is obvious that purchasers of a piece of land from some of the co-sharers cannot claim exclusive title to the specific piece of land purported to have been transferred in their favour and such alienation of the part of the land held by some of the co sharers does not bind the other co-sharers and does not convey title to a specific piece of land in favour of the purchaser. But, this does not mean that the purchasers of the land from some of the co-sharers can be prevented from exercising their right of possession even in respect of that specific piece of land conveyed and delivered to them. But, this does not mean that the purchasers of the land from some of the co-sharers can be prevented from exercising their right of possession even in respect of that specific piece of land conveyed and delivered to them. They are entitled to defend their possession against the onslaughts of the third parties who are not co-sharers though such purported transfer of a specific piece of land out of a larger extent held by co-sharers will not be binding on the other co-sharers. It is pertinent to mention here that by virtue of Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, a purchaser of a share in the property held by one or more co-sharers would acquire a proportionate share in the entire property to which their transferor is entitled. Such a purchaser is entitled to exercise the right to joint possession or other commoror part of enjoyment of the property. Further, such a purchaser can enforce partition of the property and claim allotment of a share proportionate to the share held by their vendor along with other co-owners. These rights of a purchaser from a co-sharer, however, are subject to the conditions and liabilities effecting at the date of transfer of the interest so transferred. Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act also enjoins that a purchaser of a share in the property held by a co-sharer cannot enforce the right of joint possession or part enjoyment in respect of a dwelling house belonging to undivided family if the transferee is not a member of the family. 15. But, where the sale by a co-owner is not in terms of a particular share in the property in favour of a purchaser but what has been sold and purported to have been conveyed is title to the specific piece of land, the purchaser in a suit for partition can ask the Court in terms of equities in his favour for allotment of the specific piece of property sold to him to the share of his vendor-co-owner. In such a partition, if the Court accepts the plea of the purchaser and the specific piece of property sold is allowed to his vendor, such a purchaser who initially could not have claimed exclusive title to the specific piece of land can claim on the basis of very purchase exclusive title to the land purchased by him by operation of the principle of feeding by estopped as contemplated under Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act. 16. At any rate, though such alienation of the specific piece of the property is not binding on the co-sharers and any other co-sharer may be able to challenge such alienation, the third parties and strangers who have nothing to do with the co-sharers cannot be permitted to deny the title of the plaintiffs on the basis of such purchase and they cannot be permitted to interfere with the possession of the purchaser on the ground that he has no title to the specific piece of land. 17. In this case, as a question of fact, the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff had purchased two acres of land out of survey Nos. 192-A and 324 from co-sharers and on the basis of the evidence the learned District Judge held that they in fact were delivered the possession of the piece of the land on which they continued to be in possession. On these findings, the plaintiff cannot be non-suited and cannot be declared to have no semblance of title and they cannot be refused the relief of perpetual injunction. 18. However, in view of what has been stated above, there is some substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff in this case is not entitled to the declaration of title to the specific piece of land as claimed by them by virtue of sale deed, Ex. Al as far as the other co-sharers are concerned. The relief for declaration of title in terms prayed for by the plaintiff obviously cannot be granted. But, inasmuch as they are held to be in possession, they are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. Under the circumstances, this appeal has to be partly allowed and the plaintiff's suit for relief of declaration of title in the form asked by him shall be dismissed. But, inasmuch as they are held to be in possession, they are entitled to the relief of perpetual injunction. Under the circumstances, this appeal has to be partly allowed and the plaintiff's suit for relief of declaration of title in the form asked by him shall be dismissed. In the light of the observations made above, this however does not preclude the plaintiff from canvassing his right in enquiry in the event of partition of the land among the co-sharers to have the land alienated in their favour allotted to their vendors. In such case, their right to the suit land is possible to be enlarged as full owners.