JUDGMENT : RENUKA YARA, J. Heard Sri Manda Adam, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri S.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri D. Kaval Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 35. Perused the entire record. 2. This is an appeal preferred by appellant/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 passed by the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy (‘trial Court’), in O.S.No.53 of 2013, wherein the suit filed for partition was preliminarily decreed by partitioning the suit schedule property that is item No.2 of suit schedule A property and schedule B properties into three equal shares and allotting the same to plaintiff/respondent No.1, defendant Nos.1 and 3/respondent Nos.2 and 3 and by partitioning the item No.1 of the suit schedule A property into two equal shares among the plaintiff/respondent No.1 and defendant No.1/respondent No.2. 3. The appellant herein is defendant No.2, respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff, respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.1 and respondent No.3 herein is defendant No.3 before the trial Court. Respondent Nos.4 to 35 are subsequent purchasers, who got impleaded in the present appeal. The parties are referred as they are referred by the trial Court in O.S.No.53 of 2013. Brief facts of the case: 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that herself and defendant No.1 are joint and absolute owners of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.4- 02 guntas (item No.1 of suit schedule A property) in Sy.No.232 and Ac.2-01 guntas (item No.2 of suit schedule A property) in Sy.No.237 situated at Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and residential house bearing No.4-219 admeasuring 155 sq. yards (wherein house is constructed in 60 sq.yards) situated in Patancheru town and mandal, Medak District. The father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 one Mukthala Narayana and his brother Mallaiah were the joint absolute owners and possessors of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.8- 04 guntas in Sy.No. 232 and Ac.4-24 guntas in Sy.No.220 of Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. The said properties were originally owned by Laxmaiah and upon his death devolved on one Gagamma. Mukthala Narayana and Mallaiah were sons of said Gangamma. After death of said Gangamma, there was partition among Narayana and Mallaiah and each of them got ½ share. The said properties were originally owned by Laxmaiah and upon his death devolved on one Gagamma. Mukthala Narayana and Mallaiah were sons of said Gangamma. After death of said Gangamma, there was partition among Narayana and Mallaiah and each of them got ½ share. The father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 Narayana got land to an extent of Ac.4-02 guntas in Sy.No.232 and Ac.2-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 situated at Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and suit schedule B property/residential house. Said Narayana died intestate and therefore, the property devolved on the plaintiff and defendant No.1. As the legal heirs both of them enjoyed the properties without partition. The name of defendant No.1 was entered into revenue records as he was male member as well as elder member among both of them. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 have jointly sold land admeasuring Ac.2-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 to M/s.PKL Limited vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3750/1998, dated 22.10.1998 and with the sale proceeds purchased land to an extent of Ac.2-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 of the same village as the said land was abutting to road. The agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 was purchased vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998 on 22.10.1998 from one Rachamalla Venkaiah @ Venka Goud and the said land was registered in the name of defendant No.1, as he was the elder male member of the family. 5. According to the plaintiff, herself and defendant No.1 enjoyed the fruits of the suit schedule properties upto the year 2015 and after that defendant No.1 got addicted to bad wises and started leading life luxuriously. Defendant No.1 stopped showing accounts in spite of demands from plaintiff. In the circumstances, plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties on 02.02.2013 and 17.02.2013, but defendant No.1 refused for partition. Further, defendant No.1 stated that he executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2 and will deliver the possession item No.2 of suit schedule A property and also will alienate all the other properties. Plaintiff obtained encumbrance certificate and learnt that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed vide document bearing No.3007/2013 dated 11.02.2013 with respect to item No.2 of suit schedule A property in favour of defendant No.2. The sale of land in Sy.No.237 i.e., item No.2 of suit schedule A property shows the malafide intention of defendant No.1. Plaintiff obtained encumbrance certificate and learnt that defendant No.1 executed registered sale deed vide document bearing No.3007/2013 dated 11.02.2013 with respect to item No.2 of suit schedule A property in favour of defendant No.2. The sale of land in Sy.No.237 i.e., item No.2 of suit schedule A property shows the malafide intention of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the present suit under appeal for partition. 6. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement before the trial Court admitted the relationship between himself and the plaintiff and their relationship with Mukthala Narayana, who is their father. Defendant No.1 stated that his father Mukthala Narayana married Yellamma and Papamma. Said Yellamma was blessed with one daughter namely Shivamma and Papamma was blessed with one daughter and one son, who are plaintiff and defendant No.1. The said Shivamma, who is stepsister of plaintiff and defendant No.1, was impleaded as defendant No.3 in the suit. 7. Defendant No.1 in the written statement denied the case of plaintiff about being joint owner and possessor of lands in Sy.Nos.220, 232 and 237 of Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. It is further the case of defendant No.1 that Late Gangamma, who is his grandmother, out of love and affection got executed a release deed bearing No.1684/1976, dated 26.04.1976 giving half share from her elder daughter-in-law (Yellamma) and daughter of elder daughter-in- law (Shivamma/D-3) for a consideration of Rs.4,500/- towards her grandson i.e., defendant No.1 and mutated Ac.2.12 guntas in Sy.No.220 in the year 1977 after execution of the same Gangamma died. Defendant No.1 denied jointly selling land to an extent of Ac.2-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 to M/s. PKL Ltd vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3750/1998, dated 22.03.1998 and also denied purchasing land to an extent of Ac.2-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 in the same village with sale proceeds of land in Sy.No.220. Defendant No.1 pleaded that he is owner of land in Sy.No.237 admeasuring Ac.2-01 guntas having purchased the same under registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998 on 22.03.1998 from Rachamalla Vekaiah @ Venka Goud and being absolute owner of the said property executed registered sale deed in favour of defendant No.2. He sold the said land for the purpose of raising finances for performing his second daughter’s marriage on 29.05.2013, but not on account of any bad wises such as alcohol etc. 8. He sold the said land for the purpose of raising finances for performing his second daughter’s marriage on 29.05.2013, but not on account of any bad wises such as alcohol etc. 8. According to defendant No.1, plaintiff borrowed Rs.20,000/- for construction of house bearing No.508, Mudhirajbasthi, Patancheru and Rs.15,000/- for purchase of one shutter situated near Government Junior College, Patancheru from defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 also gave Rs.25,000/- to perform the marriage of first daughter of the plaintiff. After death of their mother, plaintiff also took three tulas of gold ornaments belonging to their mother. Defendant No.1 also performed marriage of his second daughter with son of plaintiff and gave 15 tulas of gold and Rs.50,000/- for motorcycle. Defendant No.1 denied that the suit schedule properties being joint family properties and opposed plaintiff’s suit for partition. 9. Defendant No.2 filed his written statement denying his knowledge with respect to the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and the joint family properties claim in suit schedule A property item No.1 and suit schedule B property. Defendant No.2 is no way concerned with item No.1 of suit schedule A property and suit schedule B property. The only concern of defendant No.2 is item No.2 of suit schedule A property i.e., agricultural land to an extent of Ac.2- 01 guntas in Sy.No.237 of Indresham Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. Defendant No.2 claims to be bona fide purchaser of said property. Having made thorough enquiry about nature and title of the said property defendant No.2 came to know that item No.2 of suit schedule A property is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 purchased the said land under registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998, dated 22.03.1998 from one Rachamalla Venkaiah @ Venka Goud. The said Rachamalla Venkaiah @ Venka Goud purchased the said property from one T. Pentaiah vide registered sale deed document bearing No.4514/1992, dated 07.12.1992. After ascertaining that the land in Sy.No.237 is self acquired property of defendant No.1, defendant No.2 got issued a public notice on 02.02.2013 in Eenadu Daily Newspaper and when no claims were made purchased the said land under registered sale deed document bearing No.3007/2013, dated 11.02.2013. According to defendant No.2, plaintiff and defendant No.2 collusively filed the present suit to harass defendant No.2 and extract more money from him. According to defendant No.2, plaintiff and defendant No.2 collusively filed the present suit to harass defendant No.2 and extract more money from him. Therefore, defendant No.2 prayed that suit be dismissed with respect to item No.2 of suit schedule A property, failing which he would be subjected to irreparable loss and damage. 10. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues for consideration: 1. Whether the item No.1 in suit ‘A’ schedule property and suit ‘B’ schedule property are ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1? 2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 purchased item No.2 in Suit A schedule property with the sale consideration of their ancestral property i.e., Ac.02-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 of Indresham village of Patancheru Mandal in Medak District? 3. Whether the Registered sale deed vide document No.3007/2013, dated 16.02.2013 in respect of Ac.02-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 i.e., item No.2 in suit A schedule property by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is binding on the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties and she is entitled for ½ share along with defendant No.1? 5. To what relief? 11. In support of her case, the plaintiff got examined P.Ws.1 to 3 got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-12. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 got examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.B-1 to B-14. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court decreed the suit granting preliminary decree of partition with respect to item No.2 of suit schedule A property and suit schedule B property into three equal shares in favour of plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 and by partitioning item No.1 of the suit schedule A property into two equal shares allotting them to the plaintiff and defendant No.2. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by defendant No.2. Grounds of Appeal: 12. In the grounds of appeal, defendant No.2 pleaded that he is bona fide purchaser and the same is acknowledged by defendant No.1, Ex.B- 10 proves that he purchased item No.2 of suit schedule A property from defendant No.1. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the present appeal is preferred by defendant No.2. Grounds of Appeal: 12. In the grounds of appeal, defendant No.2 pleaded that he is bona fide purchaser and the same is acknowledged by defendant No.1, Ex.B- 10 proves that he purchased item No.2 of suit schedule A property from defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is owner and possessor of the said property and he sold the same in favour of defendant No.2 and there is no question of joint possession of plaintiff and defendant No.1, without there being any proof of joint possession. The plaintiff suppressed the facts and filed the present suit for partition. The trial Court arrived at wrong conclusion about the ownership and possession of item No.2 of suit schedule A property and decreed the suit, instead of dismissing the same against the said property. Therefore, defendant No.2 prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside in so far as item No.2 of suit schedule A property is concerned. Contentions of the appellant/defendant No.2:- 13. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant No.2 argued that defendant No.2 is not concerned with item No.1 of suit schedule A property and suit schedule B property as he is concerned only with item No.2 of suit schedule A property, which he has purchased from defendant No.2 under Ex.B-10. It is argued that defendant No.2 is not aware of the relationship between plaintiff and defendant No.1 and their claim with respect to item No.1 of the suit schedule A property and suit schedule B property. According to enquiry made by defendant No.2, item No.2 of suit schedule A property is self acquired property of defendant No.1 as he purchased the said property from one Rachamalla Venkaiah @ Venkat Goud vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998, dated 22.10.1998. Defendant No.2 has exercised due diligence in purchasing the said property from defendant No.1 by way of giving a newspaper publication in Eenadu Daily Newspaper and then purchased the same. Subsequent to purchase of the property by defendant No.2, the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition only to harass defendant No.2. It is also alleged that to extract more money from defendant No.2, plaintiff filed suit in collusion with defendant No.1. Subsequent to purchase of the property by defendant No.2, the plaintiff filed the present suit for partition only to harass defendant No.2. It is also alleged that to extract more money from defendant No.2, plaintiff filed suit in collusion with defendant No.1. Therefore, learned counsel for defendant No.2/appellant argued that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is to be dismissed with respect to item No.2 of suit schedule A property. Contentions of respondent No.1/plaintiff:- 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff opposed the appeal stating that entire oral and documentary evidence has been examined by the trial Court and the suit is decreed. It is alleged that item No.2 of suit schedule A property is purchased from the sale of joint family property and sale proceeds therefrom and therefore, item No.2 of suit schedule A property is joint family property, but not self acquired property and hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. Findings of the Court: 15. Among the issues framed and settled by the trial Court, the following issues are relevant for adjudication of the present appeal: Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff and defendant No.1 purchased item No.2 in Suit A schedule property with the sale consideration of their ancestral property i.e., Ac.02-12 guntas in Sy.No.220 of Indresham village of Patancheru Mandal in Medak District? Issue No.3: Whether the Registered sale deed vide document No.3007/2013, dated 16.02.2013 in respect of Ac.02-01 guntas in Sy.No.237 i.e., item No.2 in suit A schedule property by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is binding on the plaintiff? Issue No.2: 16. Defendant No.2 by relying upon Ex.B-3/A-4 registered sale deed document bearing No.3748 of 1998, dated 22.10.1998, is claiming that item No.2 of suit schedule A property is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Further, the trial Court referred to the contents of Exs.A-1 and A-2 certified copies of Khasara Pahanies for the years 1954-55 and 1970-71, which clearly show that the land in Sy.No.220 to an extent of Ac.4-24 guntas stood in the name of paternal grandmother of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The land in said Sy.No.220 was sold vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3750/1998, dated 22.10.1998 i.e., Ex.A-3/B-2 in favour of M/s. PKL Ltd and on the same day item No.2 of suit schedule A property was purchased under registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998, dated 22.10.1998 i.e, Ex.A-4/B-3. The land in said Sy.No.220 was sold vide registered sale deed document bearing No.3750/1998, dated 22.10.1998 i.e., Ex.A-3/B-2 in favour of M/s. PKL Ltd and on the same day item No.2 of suit schedule A property was purchased under registered sale deed document bearing No.3748/1998, dated 22.10.1998 i.e, Ex.A-4/B-3. On account of irrefutable evidence by plaintiff about purchase of item No.2 of suit schedule A property from sale proceeds of ancestral property in Sy.No.220, which is evident from Exs.A-1 and A-2 pahanies, the trial Court had arrived at conclusion that the nature of item No.2 of suit schedule A property is ancestral property and joint property of plaintiff and defendant No.1, but not self acquired property of defendant No.1. Upon perusal of contents of Exs.A-1 to A-4 and Exs.B-2 and B-3, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the said finding given by the trial Court about the nature of item No.2 of suit schedule A property. 17. In this appeal, the contention of defendant No.1 that property in item No.2 of suit schedule A property is his self acquired property and that he sold the same to defendant No.2 in his capacity as sole and absolute owner of the property needs to be examined. In that regard, the case of defendant No.1 is that his paternal grandmother Gangamma has got his step mother Yellamma and her daughter Shivamma/defendant No.3 to release their share in his favour under registered release deed document bearing No.1684/1976, dated 26.04.1976, on payment of Rs.4,500/-. On account of the fact that defendant No.1’s stepmother and stepsister have released their share of property in his favour, the case of defendant No.1 is that property in Sy.No.220 is his own property and he has every right to dispose of the same. Accordingly, he sold the said land in Sy.No.220 to an extent of Ac.2-12 guntas on 22.10.1998 and that on the same day in-turn purchased item No.2 of suit schedule A property from Rachamalla Venkaiah @ Venka Goud. Defendant No.1’s version leaves no doubt about the fact that the sale proceeds derived from sale of land in Sy.No.220 have been utilized for purchasing of item No.2 of suit schedule A property. 18. Defendant No.1’s version leaves no doubt about the fact that the sale proceeds derived from sale of land in Sy.No.220 have been utilized for purchasing of item No.2 of suit schedule A property. 18. Now, the point to be considered is whether the release deed executed in favour of defendant No.1 gives rise to a situation where the item No.2 of suit schedule A property becomes self acquired property of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 could have sustained his version if he had proved that the amount of Rs.4,500/- paid to his stepmother and stepsister (defendant No.3) was paid by him. However, the version of defendant No.1 himself is that his grandmother got release deed executed in his favour out of love and affection. Said pleadings from written statement of defendant No.1 are extracted and produced below: “5. …Late Gangamma due to love and affection over her Grand son, she has prepared and executed a Release deed bearing Document No.1684 of 1976 giving 1/2 nd share (in future which may fall to their share after partition) from elder daughter-in-law and daughter of elder daughter-in-law for consideration of Rs.4,500/-(Rupees Four Thousand and Give Hundred only) towards his Grandson, registered at Sangareddy Sub-Registrar office and also mutated Ac.2.12 guntas in Sy.No.220 in the name of Defendant no.1 in the year 1977, After 2 years from the date of execution Gangamma died.” 19. When the pleadings themselves reveal that it is the grandmother of defendant No.1, who got prepared and executed the release deed, when defendant No.1 was only 23 years old, in the absence of pleadings it is to be assumed that consideration for release was paid by Gangamma in favour of defendant No.1’s stepmother and stepsister(defendant No.3). When there is no specific case from defendant No.1 through his pleadings that he paid the amount towards release deed, the pleadings on record prove that Gangamma got the land released. In the circumstances stated, there is no other option, but to conclude that item No.2 of suit schedule A property is ancestral property. Hence, the trial Court has rightly considered the said issue and there is no reason to interfere with the same. Issue No.3: 20. Having concluded the nature of item No.2 of suit schedule A property as ancestral property, the trial Court considered the question as to whether registered sale deed vide document No.3007/2013, dated 16.02.2013 is binding on plaintiff or not. Issue No.3: 20. Having concluded the nature of item No.2 of suit schedule A property as ancestral property, the trial Court considered the question as to whether registered sale deed vide document No.3007/2013, dated 16.02.2013 is binding on plaintiff or not. In that regard, it is held that since item No.2 of suit schedule A property is ancestral property, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in joint possession. Reliance is placed on Exs.A-8 to A-11 i.e., A-8 C.C. of plaint in O.S.No.473 of 2006 on the file of Prl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Sangareddy; A-9 C.C. of Vakalath dated 24.10.2006; A-10 C.C. of counter dated 13.12.2006 and A-11 C.C. of written statement dated 13.12.2006. It is held that as per plaint in O.S.No.473 of 2006/Ex.A-8, plaintiff and defendant No.1 are shown as defendant Nos.1 and 2, in a suit filed by Shivamma, who is their stepsister/defendant No.3 herein. The said suit was dismissed as Shivamma/defendant No.3 executed release deed in favour of defendant No.1. It is a fact borne by record that ever since the said execution, defendant No.1 and plaintiff are in joint possession and perfected their title by adverse possession and their names appear in the revenue record. The possession of plaintiff and defendant No.1 is admitted in counter affidavit filed in O.S.No.473 of 2006 under Ex.A-10. In the said suit, it was held that since Yellamma and Shivama/defendant No.3 herein have relinquished their rights, they are not entitled to seek partition. 21. Coming to entitlement of defendant No.2 over item No.2 of suit schedule A property, reference is made in his oral evidence as D.W.2, which shows lack of knowledge about nature of item No.2 of suit schedule A property, legal heirs of deceased M. Narayana and the manner in which item No.2 of suit schedule A property, was purchased. D.W.2 has no knowledge about litigation between the family members of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Further, D.W.2 does not know the boundaries of the item No.2 of suit schedule A property. On this premise, the trial Court concluded that defendant No.2 has no knowledge about property purchased and the amount of sale consideration paid, therefore, Ex.B-10 is held to be a collusive document created by defendant No.1 to defeat the interest of plaintiff in item No.2 of suit schedule A property. 22. On this premise, the trial Court concluded that defendant No.2 has no knowledge about property purchased and the amount of sale consideration paid, therefore, Ex.B-10 is held to be a collusive document created by defendant No.1 to defeat the interest of plaintiff in item No.2 of suit schedule A property. 22. The case of defendant No.2 has to be examined to ascertain whether or not he fits under the definition of bona fide purchaser as defined under Section 19 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963. As per the judgment of Supreme Court in Manjit Singh v. Darshana Devi , [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3431] , a person claiming to be bona fide purchaser has to satisfy three conditions i.e., (1) he has paid money (2) in good faith and (3) has no knowledge about the prior claims, which is extracted and produced below: “11. Section 19 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT upon which strong reliance is sought to be placed has been interpreted by this Court in “R.K. Mohammed Ubaidullah v. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (2000) 6 SCC 402 wherein this Court held as follows:— “14. Section 19 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963, to the extent it is relevant, reads: “19. Relief against parties and persons claiming under them by subsequent title. - Except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, specific performance of a contract may be enforced against- (a) either party thereto; (b) any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract; (c)-(e) … … … As can be seen from Sections 19 (a) and (b) extracted above specific performance of a contract can be enforced against (a) either party thereto; and (b) any person claiming under him by a title arising subsequent to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract. Section 19 (b) protects the bona fide purchaser in good faith for value without notice of the original contract. This protection is in the nature of exception to the general rule. Hence, the onus of proof of good faith is on the purchaser who takes the plea that he is an innocent purchaser. Section 19 (b) protects the bona fide purchaser in good faith for value without notice of the original contract. This protection is in the nature of exception to the general rule. Hence, the onus of proof of good faith is on the purchaser who takes the plea that he is an innocent purchaser. Good faith is a question of fact to be considered and decided on the facts of each case. Section 52 of the Penal Code emphasises due care and attention in relation to good faith. In the General Clauses Act emphasis is laid on honesty. 15. Notice is defined in Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act. It may be actual where the party has actual knowledge of the fact or constructive. “A person is said not have notice” of a fact when he actually knows that fact, or when, but for wilful abstention from an inquiry or search which he ought to have made, or gross negligence, he would have known it. Explanation II of said Section 3 reads: “Explanation II-Any person acquiring any immovable property or any share or interest in any such property shall be deemed to have notice of the title if any, of any person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof.” Section 3 was amended by the Amendment Act of 1929 in relation to the definition of “notice”. The definition has been amended and supplemented by three explanations, which settle the law in several matters of great importance. For the immediate purpose Explanation II is relevant. It states that actual possession is notice of the title of the person in possession. Prior to the amendment there had been some uncertainty because of divergent views expressed by various High Courts in relation to the actual possession as notice of title. A person may enter the property in one capacity and having a kind of interest. But subsequently while continuing in possession of the property his capacity or interest may change. A person entering the property as Tenant later may become usufructuary mortgagee or may be agreement holder to purchase the same property or may be some other interest is created in his favour subsequently. But subsequently while continuing in possession of the property his capacity or interest may change. A person entering the property as Tenant later may become usufructuary mortgagee or may be agreement holder to purchase the same property or may be some other interest is created in his favour subsequently. Hence, with reference to subsequent purchaser it is essential that he should make an inquiry as to the title or interest of the person in actual possession as on the date when the sale transaction was made in his favour. The actual possession of a person itself is deemed or constructive notice of the title if any, of a person who is for the time being in actual possession thereof. A subsequent purchaser has to make inquiry as to further interest, nature of possession and title under which the person was continuing in possession on the date of purchase of the property.” 12. The aforesaid decision of this Court makes it clear that Section 19 (b) of the Act, 1963 is an exception from the general rule and the onus is on the subsequent purchaser to prove that he purchased the property in good faith and also bona fide purchaser for value.” 23. When the case of defendant No.2 as a bona fide purchaser is considered it is seen that as D.W.2 in his cross-examination, he deposed as follows: “…I do not know whether I have any receipt or not for the consideration paid for the above land. I am running Super market. I opened it recently about 3 years back. I am not income tax assessee. It is true that I myself did not pay any amount from my hands towards sale consideration of item No.2 of suit A-Schedule land. …” 24. As per above evidence of defendant No.2 as D.W.2, he did not pay the sale consideration for purchase of item No.2 of suit schedule A property. The contents of Ex.B-10-registered sale deed document bearing No.3007/2013, dated 11.02.2013, shows that no consideration was paid on the date of registration as consideration was already paid and the same is acknowledged. Contrary to the contents of Ex.B-10, with respect to sale consideration, defendant No.2 as D.W.2 deposed that he did not pay sale consideration from his hands. Such an admission by D.W.2 nullifies his claim of being bona fide purchaser. Contrary to the contents of Ex.B-10, with respect to sale consideration, defendant No.2 as D.W.2 deposed that he did not pay sale consideration from his hands. Such an admission by D.W.2 nullifies his claim of being bona fide purchaser. A bona fide purchaser is one, who pays valid sale consideration and not a person, who gets sale deed registered in his favour without payment of sale consideration. Therefore, there is no error on the part of trial Court with respect to status of defendant No.2 not being a bona fide purchaser. 25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the findings of the trial Court that registered sale deed under Ex.B-10 was created to defeat the legitimate right of the plaintiff cannot be faulted with. Since no sale consideration is paid under Ex.B-10, the said document is not binding on the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to share in item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule A property and suit schedule B property. Thus, there are no merits in the present appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2018 in O.S.No.53 of 2013 on the file of the trial Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.