Estoppel by acknowledged partition prevents vendors and purchasers from asserting title beyond the transferor's legally transferable share.

A co-executant who knowingly joins a sale deed acknowledging an earlier partition arrangement is precluded from later asserting title inconsistent with that arrangement. A purchaser acquires no better title than the vendor and cannot claim land not allotted to the vendor under the partition. Under the Transfer of Property Act, a transferee from a co-owner may seek joint possession and partition only to the extent of the transferor's legally transferable share. Interference with the possession of persons holding land outside that share is not permissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the vendor's execution of a sale deed acknowledging an earlier partition decree estopped him, and consequently the purchaser from him, from asserting a share contrary to that decree; (ii) Whether the purchaser could interfere with the plaintiffs' possession of land not allotted to his vendor.

Issue (i): Whether the vendor's execution of a sale deed acknowledging an earlier partition decree estopped him, and consequently the purchaser from him, from asserting a share contrary to that decree.

Analysis: The vendor, despite knowledge that the earlier partition was between the plaintiffs and another co-sharer and excluded his mother, joined as co-executant of a subsequent sale deed that expressly referred to the partition decree. The assertion that he joined merely as a confirming party after receiving consideration for his share was unsupported by the sale deed. His informed participation amounted to acceptance of the prior partition. A person having an interest in property who actively participates in a conveyance under circumstances imputing knowledge and consent to its recitals cannot subsequently repudiate the transaction. The purchaser could claim no better title than that of the vendor.

Conclusion: The vendor and the purchaser were estopped from disputing the partition decree or claiming a share inconsistent with it; the vendor's sale conveyed no title binding on the plaintiffs. This issue is in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the purchaser could interfere with the plaintiffs' possession of land not allotted to his vendor.

Analysis: A transferee from a co-owner may seek joint possession and partition only to the extent of the transferor's legally transferable share under Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The purchaser did not pursue that remedy and sought to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession of property not earmarked to his vendor.

Conclusion: The purchaser was not entitled to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession, and the plaintiffs were entitled to a permanent injunction. This issue is in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The prior partition and the plaintiffs' possession were protected against the purchaser's adverse claim.

Ratio Decidendi: A person interested in property who knowingly joins as co-executant in a conveyance affirming a partition arrangement is estopped from later asserting a title inconsistent with that arrangement; a transferee cannot acquire a superior right and must pursue the co-owner's statutory partition remedy.

---