Yeah, maybe. There's a reason different jurisdictions go different ways on this. You could also argue that the true owner could have thwarted the fraud by more

Yeah, maybe. There's a reason different jurisdictions go different ways on this. You could also argue that the true owner could have thwarted the fraud by more careful identity management, and the purchaser (in hiring a solicitor to ensure the bona fides of the seller) has done nothing wrong. And if the true owner was absentee, the fraud might not be uncovered for years, long after the purchaser has moved in and made reliance on ownership. The bottom line is that there are two innocent victims and one or both are getting screwed. I prefer your rule too, overall, but there are circumstances where one or the other is going to be more unjust in a particular case.