ADDANKI RAMANAMMA Vs. RAMAVARAPU ANTHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of law. The respondent herein obtained a decree against the appellants vendor for an injunction restraining him from interfering with her right to drain off water through his lands. The appellant purchaed the property after the passing of the decree.Two questions are raised by Sri B. V. Ramanarasu the learned Advocate for the appellant; (i) that the decree for injunction passed as against the vendor, being personal, cannot be enforced against her; (ii) that both the Courts below erred in holding that the terms of S. 5 Transfer of Property Act apply and that his client is not affected by lis pendens.

(2.) In support of his first contention, he relied upon the decision in -- Dahyabhai v. Bapalal, 26 Bom 140 (A), Jenkins C. J. in delivering the judgment of the Bench held that the purchaser of the land in execution of a decree was not bound on the ground that the injunction does not run with the land and the decision in -- Attorney General v. Brimingham, Tame and Rea District Drainage Board, (1881) 17 ch D 685 (B) was relied on by him. Jessel M. R., held therein that the new Board was not bound by the injunction issued against the previous Board and observed as follows:

(3.) Section 52, Transfer of Property Act runs, in the following terms: