Judgment :- (Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Criminal Procedure Code against the order dated 11.7.2003 and made in C.C.No.20 of 2000 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur.) The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.20 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur. The revision is directed against the order of acquittal of the accused 1 and 2. Since the defacto complainant died during the pendency of the revision, his son has been brought on record in his place. 2. As per the case of prosecution, the complainant purchased 50 cents of land in Survey No.205/2B in Rakhiapalayam Village as per sale deed Ex.P.8 dated 19.6.1992 for Rs.12,500/- from the accused, who claimed that they had valid title ancestrally to the property conveyed to the complainant. Since the complainant was restrained from entering into the land by one Subramaniam, son of Muthusamy Gounder, he filed O.S.No.753 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruppur, for permanent injunction and the same was subsequently transferred to the file of District Munsif, Avinasi. Along with the suit, I.A.No.2426 of 1992 was also filed by him for temporary injunction and the said petition was dismissed on 26.7.1993 on the ground that the complainant had no valid title to the property purchased in view of the fact that his vendors had no title for the same. He also came to know that his vendors, viz., A-1 and A-2, did not have any right or title to the property conveyed as per partition deeds dated 26.3.1960 and 16.02.1987. Therefore, the complainant allowed the suit to be dismissed and accordingly, the suit O.S.No.753 of 1992 was dismissed for default. It is also stated in the complaint that dry land of 9 Acres and 18 cents in Survey No.205/2B in Rakhiapalayam Village originally belonged to one Muthu Range Gounder and his son M.Subramania Gounder and as per Partition Deed dated 26.3.1960, the same was partitioned between them and the entire land of 9.18 Acres in ''A'' Schedule in Survey No.205/2B was allotted to the share of Muthu Range Gounder and no share was allotted to Subramania Gounder. Subramania Gounder, son of Muthu Range Gounder, viz., A-1, and his son A-2 partitioned the properties in respect of the ''B'' Schedule Property as per deed dated 16.02.1987 and even as per which, no property was allotted either to A-1 or A-2 in Survey No.205/2B. Further, A-1 and A-2 by misrepresenting the fact that they have got title in respect of the above said 50 Cents in survey No.205/2B, conveyed the property to the complainant and cheated him. 3. The complaint was made to the Rakhiapalayam Police Station on 06.01.1999 and case was registered as per Ex.P.6 printed First Information Report dated 28.3.1999. The Investigating Officer, after completing investigation, filed final report under Section 420 I.P.C. 4. In order to prove the case, the defacto complainant examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 to P.W.9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. As against such evidence, the accused examined one Balasubramaniam, Village Administrative Officer of Rakhiapalayam Village, as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.6. 5. The trial Court, considering such evidence adduced on either side and the Exhibits marked thereon, recorded finding that there have been much delay in preferring the complaint and that no case is made out against the accused and accordingly, acquitted both A-1 and A-2. The acquittal of the accused is under challenge in this revision. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner / defacto complainant, learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 / A-1 and A-2. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner / defacto complainant argued that inasmuch A-1 and A-2 conveyed the property with the knowledge that they had no valid title either ancestrally or otherwise, it is a clear act of cheating by conveying the property as per the sale deed Ex.P.8 dated 19.6.1992 receiving the sale consideration of Rs.12,500/-. As regards delay in preferring the complaint, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the defacto complainant filed suit in O.S.No.753 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif, Tiruppur, and that since the suit was transferred to the file of District Munsif, Avinasi, from the file of District Munsif, Tirppur, which was ultimately allowed to be dismissed for default, the delay has occurred in preferring complaint which, according to him, is not fatal to the case of prosecution. He contended that the acquittal of the accused by the trial Court is not proper and the same has to be set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the accused 1 and 2 submitted that inasmuch as the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was a witness to the Partition Deed dated 16.02.1987 between A-1 and A-2 and inasmuch he did not choose to verify with regard to the title of the property as claimed by A-1 and A-2, despite the fact that P.W.1 is related to A-1, it cannot be said that the accused have cheated the defacto complainant and as such, offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is not attracted and, therefore, the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference of this Court. 9. The fact remains that P.W.1/defacto complainant purchased the property, viz., 50 cents in survey No.205/2B in Rakhiapalayam Village from A-1 and A-2 as per sale deed Ex.P.8 dated 19.6.1992 for Rs.12,500/-. It is not in dispute that P.W.1 has married the sister of A-1 and as such, both A-1 and A-2 are close relatives to the revision petitioner. It is also not in dispute that immediately after purchase, when P.W.1 went to the land purchased by him, he was retrained by P.W.2 Subramaniamm, who claimed that he purchased the property as early as in the year 1974 as per sale deed Ex.P.2 from Muthu Range Gounder, father of A-1, which made P.W.1 to file the suit in O.S.No.753 of 1992 for permanent injunction on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruppur, which was subsequently transferred to the file of District Munsif, Avinasi. It is seen that along with the suit, I.A.No.2426 of 1992 was also filed by the revision petitioner seeking for temporary injunction, which, after contest, was dismissed as early as on 26.7.1993 on the ground that the vendors, viz., A-1 and A-2, had no title to the property conveyed. It is also seen that though the I.A. was dismissed, the suit was pending till such time it was allowed to be dismissed by P.W.1 on 16.9.1998. As such, it is clear that only thereafter, on 06.01.1999, the revision petitioner filed private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on that basis, First Information Report Ex.P.6 was registered on 28.3.1999. As such, it is clear that only thereafter, on 06.01.1999, the revision petitioner filed private complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on that basis, First Information Report Ex.P.6 was registered on 28.3.1999. Therefore, as rightly observed by the trial Court, there have been much delay in preferring the complaint on 06.01.1999 despite the fact that I.A. No.2426 of 1992 filed by him for temporary injunction, after contest, came to be dismissed on 26.7.1993 though A-1 and A-2 had no valid title to the property conveyed to him, which made him to file the complaint. Therefore, on the facts of the case, it is crystal clear that at the time of purchase of the land itself, P.W.1 was fully aware of the fact that A-1 and A-2 had no valid title for the property conveyed to him. 10. It is well settled that it is for the purchaser to verify with regard to the validity of the title of the vendor even before purchasing land. As such, the revision petitioner ought to have verified about the title of A-1 and A-2 to the property purchased by him. In this regard, there is nothing in evidence to show that the revision petitioner/defacto complainant had verified the validity of the title of the accused for the property conveyed to him. It is also in evidence that as per the Partition Deed dated 26.3.1960 between A1 and his father Muthu Range Gounder, no property was allotted to the share of A-1 in Survey No.205/2B and the entire property was allotted only to his father Muthu Range Gounder as per ''A'' Schedule. That apart, as per the partition deed dated 16.02.1987 between A-1 and A-2 also, the said property has not been divided by the accused. Therefore, it is to be construed that the revision petitioner/defacto complainant was fully aware of the fact that A-1 and A-2 had no title in respect of 50 cents of land in Survey No.205/2B and despite the same, he though fit to purchase the same as per sale deed Ex.P.8 dated 19.6.1992. Inasmuch P.W.1 did not choose to verify with regard to the title of the property as claimed by A-1 and A-2, despite the fact that P.W.1 is related to A-1, it cannot be said that the accused have cheated the defacto complainant. Inasmuch P.W.1 did not choose to verify with regard to the title of the property as claimed by A-1 and A-2, despite the fact that P.W.1 is related to A-1, it cannot be said that the accused have cheated the defacto complainant. In that view, as rightly found by the trial Court, the offence of cheating against A-1 and A-2 is not attracted and if at all it is to be claimed, it will be only civil liability for damages. 11. The trial Court, considering all these aspects in its proper perspective, rightly recorded finding that the offence of cheating is not made out and acquitted the accused and such finding, being not perverse or erroneous, does not warrant any interference of this Court. 12. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The order dated 11.7.2003 passed in C.C.No.20 of 2000 by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruppur is confirmed.