Dixit, J.

[1] This is a second appeal in execution in which Mr. Chandrachud for the appellant has raised two questions of law.

[2] The decree giving rise to the execution application was obtained by the respondent against two persons, viz. Shaikh Taj Mahomed Shaikh Yunas and Shaikh Hasan Shaikh Yunas on l8bh October 1947, in Suit No. 732 of 1917. That was a suit filed by the respondent against the defendants claiming a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,775-5-0 and all costs of suit and also claiming a decree that if the defendants failed to pay the amount, the plaintiff should recover the said amount by sale of the property mentioned in Para. 1 of the plaint. There was a prayer for a declaration that the plaintiff had got a charge under Section 55, Transfer of Property Act, on the property in suit and that a decree to the effect that the plaintiff should recover the decretal amount by sale of the pro-party should be pissed, The decree, so far as material, runs as follows :

"The plaintiff do recover from defendants 1 and 2 the gum of Rs. 1776-5 0, coals of the suit and further interest on the sum of Rs. 1700 at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent. per anum from the date of the institution of the suit till payment. A. charge in respect of the amount due to the plaintiff is (hereby) kept on the property in suit,"

[3] Pursuant to this decree, the decree-holder filed on 11th December 1917, the present darkbast No. 1256 of 1947 to execute the decree against the defendants impleading the present appellant as an added defendant. He was impleaded because, according to the plaintiff, he was a purchaser of the property in dispute under a sale-deed executed in his favour on 8th July 1347. By the darkhast the respondent claimed to recover the amount mentioned in the darkhast by sale of the property. The appellant filed a written statement which is Ex. 14 in the case in which he raised various contentions including the contention set out in para, 3 of the written statement which was that the darkhast could not proceed against the immoveable house and that a statutory charge could not be placed upon that property. The executing Court overruled the contention, and in directing darkhast to proceed, ordered the charged property to be sold.

[4] From that decree, the appellant preferred an appeal is the District Court, Poona, and the learned Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal summarily under Order 41, Rule 11, Civil P. C. From the appellate decree the added defendant has come up in second appeal.

[5] Upon this appeal, Mr. Chandrachud for the appellant has raised two points. It is argued, firstly, that the charge created by the decree could not be enforced against the appellant who bad no notice of the charge, and it is next argued that in any case the decree giving rise to the execution application was not binding upon him since he was not a party to the suit in which the decree was passed.

[6] In dealing with the first contention it is necessary to bear in mind the facts leading up to Suit No. 732 of 1947. The property in dispute belonged to one Chandbibi. After her death two persons claiming to be her heirs agreed to sell the auit property to the respondent for Rs. 13,600 upon certain conditions and executed a sate khat. The respondent paid Rs. 1,700 as earnest money. Since the vendors failed to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the sate khat, the respondent filed civil Suit No. 732 of 1947 for the refund of the earnest money paid by him and interest thereon. The Court gave him a decree for the amount claimed and a declaration that the respondent had a charge upon the property for the amount of the decree. Now, the agreement to sell took place in September 1946. Suit No. 732 of 1947 was filed on 16th July 1947, and the appellant purchased the property on 8th July 1947, i. e., some eight days before the date of the institution of the suit. It is to be noted that in the written statement filed by the appellant, the appellant has not alleged that he purchase