The right, title, and interest of the judgment-debtor is limited by any obligations with reference to the land binding upon the judgment-debtor, and the attachment cannot enlarge these rights without knowledge of those limitations.

Wadsworth, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit by a Court-auction purchaser for possession of the land which he had purchased, from the appellants who are alleged to have trespassed upon that land after delivery through Court, claiming title to it under a private sale made at the time when the attachment was pending. The essential facts are that the appellants, who, were defendants 1 and 2 in the trial Court, held certain mortgages over the land in question and they allege that on 10th March, 1932 the mortgagor who was not a party in these proceedings entered into an agreement with them to sell to them* the mortgaged land. The written statement does not describe this agreement, but it is said in the course of arguments that it was an unregistered written agreement. Nearly a month later, on 3rd April, 1932 the present respondent in execution of a money decree against the mortgagor attached that land. It is not in evidence whether this attachment was with or without notice of the contract to sell. On 8th June, 1932, that is to say, two months after the attachment the mortgagor executed a registered sale deed in favour of the appellants conveying to them the land which was under attachment. Some eight months later on 15th February, 1933, the respondent in execution of his decree brought the same land to sale in Court-auction and purchased it himself and two years later he got delivery through Court. Thereafter the appellants are alleged to have entered upon the land and hence this suit.

2. The trial Court disposed of the suit in a very short judgment without giving any finding on the issue relating to the alleged agreement to sell dated 10th March, 1932. The learned District Munsif expressed the opinion that after the attachment the agreement could not have been carried out by the debtors to the detriment of the plaintiff. In appeal the attention of the learned District Judge was drawn to the decision in Paparaju Veeraraghavayya v. Kamaladevi (1934) 68 M.L.J. 67 and other cases and he found himself unable to agree with the District Munsif that the truth of the agreement of March, 1932, was not a matter to be considered in the suit, but he supported the trial Courts decision on the ground that there was nothing in the written statement to show that the plaintiff had notice of this agreement, apparently holding the view that, though a person who has rights under a contract to sell at the time of an attachment can enforce these rights as against the attaching decree-holder, the enforcement depends on the question whether the attaching decree-holder had at the time of the attachment notice of the existence of the contract and he also seems to think that it is the duty of the persons claiming under the contract to prove that the attaching decree-holder had notice.

3. Now, there is a line of decisions of this Court which make it quite clear that though a contract to sell does not, having regard to the terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, create any interest in or charge on the property, it does give rise to an obligation which limits the right of the judgment-debtor and that the attachment of the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor is subject to any such limitation by which the judgment-debtor was bound. The cases which have been quoted before me on this point are Bapineedu v. Venkayya (1910) 21 M.L.J. 82 Rebala Venkata Reddi v. Mangadu Yellappa Chetty (1916) 5 L.W. 234 Paparaju Veeraraghavayya v. Kamaladevi (1934) 68 M.L.J. 67 Veerappa Thevar v. Venkatarama Aiyar (1935)69MLJ678 , Diravyam Pillai v. Veeranan Ambalam AIR1939Mad702 , and there is a decision of the Privy Council which throws light on the same subject reported in Nur Mahomed Peerbhoy v. Dinshaw Hormasji Motiwalla (1922)45 M.L.J. 770. An attempt has been made to distinguish these decisions on the ground that they are cases in which the prospective purchaser has under his contract either paid money or got possession, but it does not seem