Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J.

1. The fourth defendant, who is the appellant in this appeal) is a simple money decree-holder who has purchased door Nos. 17 and 18 in execution of his decree. He objects to their being sold under the charge decree for maintenance made in O.S. No. 39 of 1927. His contentions are four-fold and can be stated briefly as follows. The decree creating a charge is bad for want of registration if the charge is to be deemed as one brought into existence by the act of parties. The second point is that a prior order made on 23rd October, 1933, on an application by the judgment-debtor to stop the sale of houses bearing Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 26 is res judicata against the contention raised by the charge decree-hoider. The third point taken is that Section 70 of the Transfer of Property Act which says that accession to the mortgaged property shall, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, enure to the benefit of the mortgagee does not apply to the present case because there could be no contract to the contrary in the case of a charge created by a decree of Court. Lastly, under the decree, what was charged were only the two houses then existing but not the s