PUTTANNA Vs. KORAPOLU ALIAS BHAGI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are of opinion that the plaintiff has no charge upon the property for her maintenance. The sale-deed creates no such charge. It is the seller and not the plaintiff who would have a charge upon the property for any unpaid purchase money. What the plaintiff relies upon is merely a covenant by the vendee with the vendor to pay the plaintiff a certain quantity of rice annually. Such a covenant would not give rise to a charge Vide WEbb V/s. Macpherson 31 C. 57. WE, therefore, allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.