Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. This appeal by defendant 19 arises out of a mortgage suit instituted for recovery of arrear of Nankar dues for the years 1349 to 13571 Fasli against the defendants including the appellant. 2. The sole question for determination in the present appeal is, whether the appellant is liable to pay the Nankar dues to the plaintiff? 3. The plaintiff is 16 annas Nankar of two villages Bhadupabuzurg, tauzi No. 3558, and Maripurkalan, tauzi No, 3616. The defendants are the proprietors of these two tauzies. The plaintiff has also purchased at an auction sale 1 anna 1 pie 10 karants out of 2 amiss proprietary interest in village Bhudpa Buzurg tauzi No. 3558, belonging to Mosstt Indrasan Kuer, defendant 7, on the 30th April, 1943. 4. In a previous suit for recovery of Nankar rent, the plaintiff-respondent obtained a decree on the 3rd September, 1934 (Ext. 3/a) and subsequently put it into execution. This execution petition is Ext. A, and, the sale proclamation is Ext. B, In the said execution proceeding -- Execution Case No. 1387 of 1939, the appellant-defendant 19 purchased 7 annas 5 pies share in village Bhadpabuzurg out of tauzi No. 3558 belonging to Babu Debendra Prasad, defendant 1 to the present suit, son of Rai Bahadur Gulab Chand. That is the reason why defendant 19 was also impleaded as a defendant to the suit along with the other defendants, the admitted proprietors of the two tauzies. 5. The plaintiffs suit was contested only by the appellant, defendant 19. His main defence, inter alia, with which we are concerned in the present appeal, was the question of his liability. He denied his liability to pay the Nankar dues on the ground that he purchased this proprietary share without any notice of Nankar charge on the property auction-sold and purchased by him because there was no mention of any such charge either in the execution petition (Ext. A) or in the sale proclamation (Ext. B) of the execution, in which the appellant purchased the disputed property. 6. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the appellant had notice of the charge of Nankar on the proprietary interest which he purchased at the auction sale, and, therefore, he was liable for it and was estopped from disputing is liability to pay the Nankar dues ,to the plaintiff. 7. 6. Both the courts below have concurrently found that the appellant had notice of the charge of Nankar on the proprietary interest which he purchased at the auction sale, and, therefore, he was liable for it and was estopped from disputing is liability to pay the Nankar dues ,to the plaintiff. 7. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, who decided the appeal of the appellant in the court of appeal below, after having determined the liability of the appellant to pay the Nankar dues to the plaintiff, has remanded, the suit for determination of the amount which is to be deducted from the annual Nankar dues on account of his purchase of the proprietary interest to the extent of 1 anna 1 pie 10 karants out of 2 annas proprietary share in village Bhadpabuzurg tauzi No. 3558. 8. According to the Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms compiled by Mr. H.H. Wilson, 1940 edition, Nankar literally means "bread for work". Nankar is stated therein to be land given by Zamindars or like for some service performed, a Mr. Wilsons Glossary, it is stated about Nankar as below: "In Bengal finance, a term applied to an assignment of a portion of the land or revenue of an estate, made to the occupant or Zamindar as an allowance for his subsistence, usually amounting to about five, or sometimes ten per cent, on the assessment payable to the State. If removed from the management of the estate, the Nankar was occasionally withdrawn, tin contradistinction to the Malikana, which, was always granted," 9. This history of Nankar in the present suit is mentioned in a previous judgment dated the 14th March, 1927, between Rai Bahadur Gulabchand, father of present defendant 1, Debendra Prasad, whose share was purchased by the appellant at the auction sale, and the present plaintiff and other (Ext. 2/c). From this Judgment, it will appear that the entire Government revenue payable by the defendants, the proprietors of the two villages Bhadupabuzurg, tauzi No. 3558, and Mari purkalan, tauzi No. 3616, as per decennial settlement of the year 1197 F. S., was Rs. 547/8/-. A contract was entered into in 1846 between the proprietors of the two villages, and, this Nankardar, under which the proprietors agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 336/4/- only to the Nankar holders and to pay the balance of Rs. 547/8/-. A contract was entered into in 1846 between the proprietors of the two villages, and, this Nankardar, under which the proprietors agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 336/4/- only to the Nankar holders and to pay the balance of Rs. 200.00 and odd to the Government, and since then payments were being made accordingly, and, the agreement of 1846 was acted upon consistently by the parties without any demur or protest, and decrees where being obtained by the plaintiff against the defendants, the proprietors, since then. There is, therefore, no doubt that the defendants, the proprietor of the two villages, of which the plaintiff was the Nankardar, were liable to pay Nankar dues to the plaintiff. There is therefore, also no doubt that the appellants predecessor-in-interest, Devendra Prasad, son of Raj Bahadur Gulabchand, was also liable as proprietor of the share purchased now by the appellant to pay the Nankar dues in respect of his share to the plaintiff, the Nankardar of the two villages. 10. The only question is, whether the appellant On the facts of the present case, can be said to have purchased the proprietary share without notice of the Nankar charge at the auction sale. 11. It will appear from the previous Judgment of this Court in Second Appeal No. 60 of 1949 between the present appellant and the plain-tiff-respondent and others dated the 21st April, 1950 (Ext. 2/b) that it was agreed between the parties that Nankar rent is a charge on the property in respect of which it is payable. The question, whether a Nankari rent was a charge, Came up for consideration in Harnarain V/s. Bank of Upper India, 172 Ind Gas 855 : (AIR 1938 Oudh 84), before the then Oudh Chief Court, It was held by a Division Bench of that Court that Nankari rent was a charge within the meaning of Sec.100 of the Transfer of Property Act. In that case, it was further held that an auction purchaser gets property subject to the same restrictions which the judgment-debtor himself was subject to and if the property is subject to any valid encumbrance, the purchaser gets it subject to the same. The contention raised in that case that the auction purchaser was a bona fide transferee without notice and was, therefore, not bound by the charge was negatived. The contention raised in that case that the auction purchaser was a bona fide transferee without notice and was, therefore, not bound by the charge was negatived. There is, therefore, no doubt that this Nankar did constitute a charge on the property purchased by the appellant. 12. The only question which remains, therefore, to be considered is can the appellant be considered to have purchased it without notice of the charge because of non-mention of this charge specifically in the execution petition or in the sale proclamation in that execution case in which the appellant purchased? This question has been considered by both the courts below, and, after a consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case they concurrently found that the appellant had notice of the charge of Nankar on the proprietary interest which the appellant purchased at the auction sale. In my opinion, the reasons given by the courts below are convincing enough to establish that the appellant purchased the proprietary interest fa question with notice of the charge of Nankar on it. As rightly observed by the courts below, the very fact that the proprietary interest was going to be sold in execution of the decree for Nankari rent should have put the appellant on enquiry. The number of the rent suit in which the decree (Ext. 3/a) was passed was mentioned in the sale proclamation, and, as such, as rightly observed by the trial Judge, it was the duty of the appellant to make an enquiry regarding the nature of the decree in which the property purchased by him was being sold. As also very rightly observed by the learned trial Judge, ordinarily a proprietary interest could not have been sold in a rent decree, and, as such it should have struck the appellant at once as to why a proprietary interest was going to be sold in a rent execution. As I entirely agree with the reasons given by the courts below for coming to the conclusion that the appellant, in the circumstances of the present case, must be deemed to have purchased the proprietary interest with notice and knowledge of the charge of Nankari rent on it and that therefore, the appellant was liable to pay the Nankari rent, it is not necessary to pursue the matter any further. It is enough, therefore, to mention that nothing has been brought to my notice or placed before me which can persuade me to differ from the concurrent findings of the courts below iN my opinion, therefore, it must be held that simply because the charge was not mentioned in the sale proclamation or in the execution petition, it cannot be said that the appellant must be deemed to have purchased the proprietary interest without knowledge of the charge, and, therefore, he was not liable for the Nankari dues to the plaintiff. 13. In this connection, strong reliance was, however, placed by Mr. K.K. Sinha, who appeared for the appellant. On a Bench decision of this Court in Rajkishore Lall V/s. Begum Sultan Jehan, AIR 1953 Pat. 58 . In that case, their Lordships, Das and Ramaswami, JJ., as then they were, held inter alia that a bona fide auction purchaser at the sale in execution of the decree without notice of an equitable charge is not bound by any equitable right or claim upon the property binding en the judgment-debtor. That case, however, has no application to the present case, because the appellant in the circumstances of the case and on the concurrent findings of the court below, cannot be said to be a purchaser of the proprietary interest without notice of the charge on it. In the present case, there is no doubt that the liability to pay Nankar rent runs with the estate. Accordingly to the contract between the parties in 1846, as mentioned in Ext. 2(c), by mutual agreement between the proprietors and the Nankardar, this liability of the proprietors to pay Nankar rent to the Nankardar, the plaintiff, was made a charge on it, and, therefore, it went with the estate, unless otherwise varied, as rightly observed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, by any novation of contract. 14. For the reasons given above, I affirm the Judgment of affirmance of the Court of appeal below and hold that the appellant is also liable, by virtue of his auction-purchase of the share of defendant No. 1, to pay the Nankari dues to the plaintiff-appellant. 15. In the result, the appeal toils and is dismissed with costs.