ORDER : Heard Mr. Manjul Prasad learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vineet Prakash, As.C to SC. 2. The plaintiffs-appellants have filed a suit being Title Suit No. 94 of 1993 before the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dhanbad for grant of decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the Schedule-C land of the plaint in any manner and also a decree directing the defendant to execute the deed of exchange in favour of plaintiffs for equal area of land as given in Schedule-B of the plaint and cost of the suit. 3. The Trial Court had issued notice to respondent defendant- Jharkhand State Housing Board, who had filed a written statement before the trial court. 4. The court below has framed several issues from which issue no. 4 and 5 are quoted herein below:- iv. Whether the plaintiff and defendant exchanged their lands and are in possession of exchanged lands? v. Has the plaintiff got any right, title and interest over suit land as per exchange plan? 5. The Trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record, returned the finding that when the so called deed of exchange was signed in the year 1981, the plaintiffs-appellants were not the owner of the Schedule-B land. Thus the deed of exchange was signed by the plaintiffs-appellants by playing fraud by showing that they are the owner of the Schedule-B land. 6. The finding returned by the court below has been confirmed by First Appellate Court. Thus, there is concurred finding by both the courts below. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has tried to justify the same that subsequently they had acquired the ownership of the Schedule-B land by a sale deed in the year 1987. It has been submitted that after acquiring the title over the Schedule-B land, they had pursued the matter before the authority for validating the exchange because they were acquired the title over the Schedule-B land. 8. The present suit has been filed in the year 1993. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has tried to take shelter of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which reads as under:- 43. 8. The present suit has been filed in the year 1993. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has tried to take shelter of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which reads as under:- 43. Transfer by unauthorized person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred- Where a person [fraudulently or] erroneously represents that he is authorized to transfer certain immoveable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists. Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferees in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of the said option. Illustration A, a Hindu who has separated from his father B, sells to C three fields, X, Y and Z, representing that A is authorized to transfer the same. Of these fields Z does not belong to A, it having been retained by B on the partition; but on B’s dying A as heir obtains Z. C, not having rescinded the contract of sale, may require A to deliver Z to him. 9. From perusal of the Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, it is evident that this is a protection given to the transferee from fraudulent action of transferor. 10. Thus, Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act gives protection to the transferee, who is the victim of fraud. It has been stipulated that at any subsequent point of time, if any interest is created in favour of transferor, then, it will get transferred to the transferee. This provision has been made to nullify the fraud committed by the transferor. 11. In the present case the transferor i.e plaintiff, who has signed the deed of exchange, knowing well that he was not the owner of the land and thus has played fraud with the public land. 12. In view of the fraud committed by the plaintiff, he is not entitled to get any protection as per Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act as quoted hereinabove. 13. In fact, Section 119 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is relevant provision, which is quoted below:- “[119. 12. In view of the fraud committed by the plaintiff, he is not entitled to get any protection as per Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act as quoted hereinabove. 13. In fact, Section 119 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is relevant provision, which is quoted below:- “[119. Right of party deprived of thing received in exchange.— If any party to an exchange or any person claiming through or under such party is by reason of any defect in the title of the other party deprived of the thing or any part of the thing received by him in exchange, then, unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the exchange, such other party is liable to him or any person claiming through or under him for loss caused thereby, or at the option of the person so deprived, for the return of the thing transferred, if still in the possession of such other party or his legal representative or a transferee from him without consideration]” 14. Mere perusal of above section makes it clear that at the option of person, who has suffered in exchange, is entitled for return of land, if other party is in possession. 15. In the present case, it has been claimed by plaintiff/appellant that he is still in possession of suit land. 16. Accordingly, appellant/plaintiff is liable to return the suit land and he cannot retain it, as per command of Section 119 of the Act (supra). 17. It is also worth to note that there is no pleading that the authority, who has signed the deed of exchange on behalf of the Housing Board, was competent in law to do so. 18. In view of the above discussion, and concurrent findings of both the courts below, this Court finds that there is no substantial question of law involved in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.