AMITABHA DUTTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Howrah in a suit for a declaration of the plinatiff 's title to the municipal Holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane within Howrah Municipality after setting aside an order under Order 21 rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure passed in Misc. Judicial Case No. 18 of 1957 and permanent injunction. ( 2 ) THE facts which are no longer in dispute may be stated as follows. One Pannalal Kundu died intestate before 1946 leaving a large estate including the disputed holding NO. 14a, Stalkart Lane. He was survived by his mother Binodamoyee, widow Subala, three sons Biswanath, Sisir and Ambar and five daughters. Thereafter in Title Suit No. 39 of 1946 brought by Biswanath for partition of the estate, there was a preliminary decree on compromise followed by a final decree passed on 20. 8. 1949 brought by Biswanath for partition of the estate, there was a preliminary decree on compromise followed by a final decree passed on 20. 8. 1949 under which the disputed holding was allotted to the share of Sisir exclusively and charged to secure payment of maintenance allowance at Rs. 90/- per month to Binodamoyee which was to be paid by Sisir to her and would be doubled in case of default in payment for three months. The charge was made enforceable in execution of the said decree. Thereafter as Sisif defaulted in payment of maintenance allowance to Binodamoyee, she executed the said decree in Title Execution Case NO. 33 of 1953 to enforce the charge by sale of the property purported to be the disputed holding. During the pendency of the execution case Sisir sold Holding NO. 14a, Stalkart Lane to one Swalram Bhowalka subject to the charge for maintenance allowance payable to Binodamoyee on 13th November 1953. On 20th July 1954 Binodamoyee auction purchased the property sold in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953 for Rs. 5, 157/- 12 annas 6 pie and the sale was confirmed on 25th August 1954. She took possession of the suit property through court on 4th August 1955. In the meantime, Howarh Municipality had filed a suit on 8th April 1953 being Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 for recovery of Rs. 5, 157/- 12 annas 6 pie and the sale was confirmed on 25th August 1954. She took possession of the suit property through court on 4th August 1955. In the meantime, Howarh Municipality had filed a suit on 8th April 1953 being Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 for recovery of Rs. 36/-2 annas 6 pie as arrears of rates and taxes by enforcing the statutory charge on the disputed holding under S. 205 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 as extended to Howrah Municipality against Sisir Kundu. Swalram's name was recorded as owner of the disputed holding in the municipal assessment register on 29. 10. 54. On 13. 8. 55 Binodamoyee wrote to Howrah Municipality to mutate her name as purchaser of the disputed holding and the said letter was acknowledged by the Municipality on 26. 9. 55. In Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 brought by Howrah Municipality Swalaram the subsequent purchaser of the disputed holding was added as defendant and a preliminary decree was made on 23. 4. 1955 and thereafter a final charge decree was passed on 28. 9. 1955. Binodamoyee was not inpleaded in the said suit at any state. Her name was mutated in the assessment register of the Municipality as a owner of the disputed holding on 22. 6. 1956. Howrah Municipality put the final charge decree into execution in Title Execution Case No. 56 of 1956 in September 1956 in which the disputed holding was sold and auction purchased by the plaintiff Panchanan Bera (since deceased) on 22. 3. 1957 and the said sale was confirmed on 13. u. 1957. Panchannan took possession of the disputed holding through court on 22. 5. 1957. Thereafter Binodanoyee filed an application under Order 21 rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Judicial Case No. 18 of 1957 complaining of dispossession by Panchanan and during the pendency of that case she died on 26. 10. 1958 leaving a Will bequeathing her estate to Indumati. The present defendant is the administrator pendente lite appointed in the testamentary suit arising out an application for probate of the said will. The aforesaid misc. case started by Binodamoyee was continued by the present defendant and it was allowed by order dated 26. 9. 1974 directing Panchanan to restore possession of the disputed holding to the present defendant. The present defendant is the administrator pendente lite appointed in the testamentary suit arising out an application for probate of the said will. The aforesaid misc. case started by Binodamoyee was continued by the present defendant and it was allowed by order dated 26. 9. 1974 directing Panchanan to restore possession of the disputed holding to the present defendant. So Panchanan Bera brought the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen being Title Suit No. 67 of 1975. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff's case in substance was that Binodamoyee purchased holding No. 14, Stalkart Lane and not then disputed Holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane on 20. 7. 54 in title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953, that her alleged purchase was during the pendency of Title Suit NO. 108 of 1953 brought by Howrah Municipality to recover arrears of rates and taxes by enforcing the statutory charge on the disputed holding which was a prior charge and so Binodamoyee was bound by the ultimate result of the said suit and that Binodamoyee was not a necessary party in the said suit as her name was mutated in the assessment register of the Municipality in respect of the disputed holding long after the final charge in that suit. It was alleged that the plaintiff acquired valid title to the disputed holding by auction purchase in execution of the charge in favour of the Municipality and was entitled to retain possession thereof. ( 4 ) ON the other hand the defence case in the written statement was that Binodamoyee purchased the disputed holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane in execution of the charge decree for recovery of her maintenance passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 1949 and a that Binodamooee was not made a party to Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 brought by Howrah Municipality or to the proceeding in execution of the decree passed therein, nor was she given any notice thereof although she was a necessary party as a hare holder in respect of the disputed holding to the knowledge of the Municipality and she had given notice of her purchase of the said loading to the Municipality by her letter dated 13. 8. 1955. So, the results of a Title Suit NO. 108 of 1953 and the connected execution proceeding were not binding on her. 8. 1955. So, the results of a Title Suit NO. 108 of 1953 and the connected execution proceeding were not binding on her. It was contended that the purported auction sale of the disputed holding for a paltry sum of Rs. 36/- 26 p. and delivery of possession thereof to Panchanan Bera, the alleged auction purchaser were illegal and void and not binding on her. ( 5 ) BOTH the courts below have dismissed the suit. The Court of appeal below has found that Binodamoyee auction purchased the disputed holding No. 14a, Stal Kart Lane in Title Execution Case NO. 33 of 1953 and not the holding No. 14, Stal Kart Lane as contended by the pontiff because, inter alia, the boundaries of the property offered for sale in the sale proclamation relate to holding NO. 14a, Stal Kart lane as contended by the plaintiff because, inter alia, the boundaries of the property offered for sale in the sale proclamation reelect to holding No 14a, Stal Kart Lane ailing with the southern building portion with certain pentile roofed structures which as attached to the original municipal holding No. 14a, Stal Kart Lane by the partition decree in Title Suit No 39 of 1949 accounting for the slight difference in area. The learned Judge has overruled the plaintiff's contention that the purchase of Binodamoyee is bind by the doctrine of lis pendens. According to him Howrah Municipality] had constructive notice of the charge held by Binodamoyee in respect of the disputed holding before the final decree was passed in Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 and although she had mutated her name in respect of the said holding before it was sold in execution of the charge decree obtained by the Municipality, she was not imp leaded either in the suit brought by the Municipality or in the execution proceeding. The statutory charge could be enforced against Binodamoyee but that was not done within the period of limitation. So, according to the curt bellow Binodamoyee had better title to maintain her possession in the disputed holding and the order in the Misc. Judicial Case NO. 18 of 1957 under Order 21 rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure brought by her against Panchannn Bera for restoration of the possession of he disputed holding to her was rightly passed. Judicial Case NO. 18 of 1957 under Order 21 rule 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure brought by her against Panchannn Bera for restoration of the possession of he disputed holding to her was rightly passed. On the aforesaid findings the court of appeal below has affirmed the decree of the court of first instance dismissing the suit. ( 6 ) SEVERAL Points have been raised assailing the decision of the first appellation court on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant. First it is submitted that the sale proclamation in Title Execution in Case No. 33 of 1953 instituted by Binodamoyee described the property offered for sale as 14, Stalkart Lane while the sale certificate issued in the said case described the property sold as 144, Stalkart Lane by insertion of the Bengali letter corresponding to 'a' (sale certificate being written in Bengali) after the digits 14, and the finding of the court of appeal below that the property sold in auction is 14a, Stalkart Lane being arrived at on surmise and faulty reasoning cannot be sustained. But on a person of the relevant portion of the judgment of the first appellate court I hold that its finding that the its finding that the insertion of the letter 'a' was by way of correction by the Judge himself at the time instance of the certificate holder, is a finding of fact passed on materials on record and it cannot be reopened in Second Appeal. Moreover, it has been established by cogent evidence that the boundaries of municipal holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane are substantially the same as the boundaries of the property offered for sale as mentioned in the sale proclamation issued in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953. The land which subsequently became municipal holding No 14a, Stalkart Lane was originally acquired by Pannalal Kundu under a regkstered Pata dated 30. 8. 1950 in which the land was described by area and boundaries, the area mentioned being 1 bigha 1 cottah 33 square feet and the same area and boundaries were subsequently recorded in the assessment register of Howrah Municipality as those of premises No. 14a, Stalkart Lane. 8. 1950 in which the land was described by area and boundaries, the area mentioned being 1 bigha 1 cottah 33 square feet and the same area and boundaries were subsequently recorded in the assessment register of Howrah Municipality as those of premises No. 14a, Stalkart Lane. At the time of partition of the property left by Pananlal Kundu among his heirs the holding No. 14a, Stalkat Lane was allotted to Sisir Kundu comprising the aforesaid 1 Bigha 1 Cottah 33 square feet land together with a parcel of and covered by some pentile roofed structures to the contiguous south thereof so as to make the area of the block 1 bigha 2 cottah 4 chhitaks 8 square feet. The commissioner for local investigation has found that except the said bulging or added portion to the south, the land covered by the said Patta and the land of 14a, Stalkart Lane as decocted in the map of the partition decree of 1949 are identical. Howrah Municipality subsequently mutated the name of Sisir Kundu as owner in respect of holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane allotted to him under the said partition decree. In the koala dated 13. 11. 53 by which Sisir Kundu sold Holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane to Swalram Bohowalka the boundaries of the partition decree were mentioned. Howrah Municipality subsequently matured the name of Swalram in the assessment register in October 1954 in respect of Holding no. 14a, Stalkart Lane as purchaser under the said sale deed. The boundaries and area of he property offered for sale in the sale proclamation issued in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953 brought by Binodamoyee to enforced the charge for maintenance created by the partition decree of 1949 are boundaries and area of 14a, Stalkart Lane as mentioned in the partition decree although the property was described in the sale proclamation as holding No. 14, Stalkart Lane. The same boundaries anr gigen in the sale certificate granted to Binodamoyee. So, the property sold in execution sale held in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953 is holding NO. 14a, Stalkart Lane, the description of the holding as 14, Stalkart Lane in the sale proclamation being a misdescription. The same boundaries anr gigen in the sale certificate granted to Binodamoyee. So, the property sold in execution sale held in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953 is holding NO. 14a, Stalkart Lane, the description of the holding as 14, Stalkart Lane in the sale proclamation being a misdescription. Where the boundaries refer to holding No. 14a, Stalkart Lane but the holding number given is 14, Stalkart Lane, the mention of the holding number is a misdescription which is a mere irregularity that will not affect the indentity of the property sold (See Sheldhayan Singh v. Sanichara Kuer AIR 1963 SC 1879 ). I, therefore, concur in the finding on this point arrived at by the court of appeal below. ( 7 ) ADMITTEDLY on 8th April 1953 Howrah municipality instituted Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 against Sisir Kundu for recovery of arrears of rates and taxes which were first charge on the disputed holding (subject to payment of land revenue) under S. 205 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1923 as extended to Howrah Municipality. During the pendency of the said suit Binodamoyee auction purchased the disputed holding on 20th July 1954 in execution of the partition decree of 1949 passed in Title Suit No. 39 of 1949 to enforce the charge created by the said decree for her maintenance and to recover the arrears of maintenance which became due to her from sisir Kundu. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that Binodamoyee had constructive notice of the statutory charge on the disputed holding for arrears of rates and taxes due thereon and is not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the said charge and that as she did not apply under Order 22 rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure to be added as a party in Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 she was found by the decree passed in the said suit and the subsequent sale in execution of that decree. In support of the submission that Binodamoyee had constructive notice of the statutory charge for arrears of municipal rates on the disputed holding, reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Akshoy Kumar v. Corporation of Calcutta ILR 42 Calcutta 625 in which the Division Bench observed that the appellant as private purchasers of the property within municipal area would have discovered if they enquired hat the rates were in arrear and they admitted that they satisfied the arrears for the year immediately prior to the date of their purchase for which they were personally liable under S. 223 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, although they did not disclose whether by enquiry they had ascertained the existence of the arrears before they made the purchase. In that case the appellants' vendor was a mortgage who acquired title by forecloser-involuntory alienation by his mortgagor-and it was held that to him constructive notice could not be imputed to the same extent as to a purchaser at a private sale. But had he made enquiries from the municipal authorities he could still have ascertained the arrears of rates. So it was held that he had constructive notice and the purchasers form him could not claim greater protection. Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the appellant on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Nawal Kishore v. The Municipal Board, Agra AIR 1943 Allahabad 115. According to the said the question of constructive notice is a question of fact which falls to be determined on the evidence and circumstances of each case. But the Court felt that there was a principle on which the question of constructive notice could rest, that principle bring that all intending purchasers of property in an area in which property is subject tot municipal tax which has been made a charge on the property by statute, have a constructive knowledge of the tax and of the possibility of some arrears being due, with the result that it becomes their duty before acquiring the property to make enquiries and failure to do so amounts to willful abstention or gross negligence within the meaning of S. 3 of the Transfer of Property Act and notice must be inputted to them. But it is difficult to accept the appellant's contention based on the aforesaid two decisions as the Supreme Court after taking notice of those decisions in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Haji Abdul Gafur 1971 (1) SC 757 has held as follows: -"we do not think there is any principle or firm rule of law as suggested in Nawal Kishore's case (supra.) Imputing to all intending purchasers of property in municipal area where municipal taxes are a charge on the property, constructive knowledge of the existence of such municipal taxes and of the reasonable possibility of those taxes being in arrears. The question of constructive knowledge or notice has to be determined on the fats and circumstances of each case. According to the Full Bench decision in Nawal Kishare's case (supra ). also the question of constructive notice is a question of fact and awe do not find that the materials on the present record justify that the plaintiff should be fixed with any constructive notice of the arrears of municipal taxes". ( 8 ) IN that case the main issue related to the liability of an auction purchaser of property (vested in Receivers in insolvency) at court sale in November 1954 in exaction of a mortgage decree for arrears of municipal taxes due since 1949 which days were a statutory charge, of which the purchaser had no actual notice, and which the Receivers had not paid even after securing necessary orders from the court. The Supreme Court held that on the facts and circumstances of that case constructive notice of municipal rates in arrears could not be imputed to the auction purchaser. In the present case the arrears of rates due in respect of the disputed holding amounted to RS. 36/-6 annas 12 pies, the quarterly rate being Rs. 6/- and odd for the recovery of which Howrah Municipality brought the suit against Sisir Kundu in April 1953. There were tenants in a part of the disputed holding and Sisir Kundu realized rent from them. Binodamoyes could not have any reasonable ground to assume that the rates were in arrears for 4 or 5 quarters since 1952. In my view on the acts and circumstances of he present case Binodamoyee could not be reasonably fixed with constructive notice of the arrears of municipal rates and taxes when she auction purchased the disputed holding in July 1954. In my view on the acts and circumstances of he present case Binodamoyee could not be reasonably fixed with constructive notice of the arrears of municipal rates and taxes when she auction purchased the disputed holding in July 1954. There can, however be no dispute about the proposition that a mortgage is a transfer of interest in specific immovable property whereas a charge does not involve a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property and only secures payment of money out of property which may or may not be specific. A plea of purchase for value without notice although it may be perfectly valid against a charge will be wholly unavailing against a mortgage. A charge is not a jus in rem but it is a jus ad rem, as it has been observed by Hidayatullah, J. (as he then was) in Bapurao v. Narayan AIR 1950 Nagpur 117. Nor can it be disputed that the expression "transfer for considerations" in S. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act includes a transfer by operation of law or in execution of a decree and should, therefore, be taken to include a purchase in a court sale. (See Luxmi Devi v. Mukund Kanwar AIR 1965 SC 834 approving the same view taken in Nawal Kishore v. The Municipal Board Agra AIR 1943 Allahabad 115 ). But in the present case, as I have already held, it cannot be reasonably said that Binodamoyee had constructive notice of the statutory charge for arrears of municipal rates of the disputed holding when she auction purchased the said holding on 20. 7. 54 in the sale in execution of the partition decree of 1949 to enforce the charge on the said holding for arrears of maintenance due to her. Nor did she have actual notice of the statutory charge or of the Title Suit NO 108 of 1953 brought by the Municipality. So, the question of her applying under Order 22 rule 10 for being added as a party in that suit did not arise. ( 9 ) IT is next contended on behalf of the appellant that the auction purchase of the disputed holding by Binodamoyee during the pendency of Title suit No. 108 of 1953 Brought by the Municipality was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. ( 9 ) IT is next contended on behalf of the appellant that the auction purchase of the disputed holding by Binodamoyee during the pendency of Title suit No. 108 of 1953 Brought by the Municipality was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens. In this connection reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mangru v. Taraknathji AIR 1967 SC 1390 that in view of S. 52 of the Transfer of Property Act if the mortgagor grants a lease during the pendency of the suit for sale by the mortgage the lessee is bound by the result of the litigation. If the property is sold in execution of the decree passed in such a suit the lessee cannot resist a claim for possession by the auction purchaser. The lessee could apply for being joined as a party to the suit and ask for an opportunity to redeem the property. But if he allows the property to be sold in execution of the decree he loses his right of redemption. Thus it appears that in the reported case the lessee had knowledge of the suit by the mortgage. But in the present case there is no evidence that Binodamoyee knew about the suit brought by the Municipality to get opportunity to be added as a party and pay off the dues of the municipality. So, it cannot be said that she allowed the property to be sold in execution of the decree passed in that suit. It is also highly improbable that she would do so, if she had knowledge of the said suit in which the claim for arrears of rates was a paltry sum of Rs. 36/- 2 annas 6 pies while she had earlier auction purchased the disputed holding for Rs. 5157/ -. The learned advocate for the respondent has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bishan Singh v. Khazan Singh AIR 1958 SC 838 in which it has been held as follows: -"the doctrine of lis pendens applies only to a transfer pendente lite but it cannot affect a preexisting right. If the sale is a transfer in recognition a preexisting and subsisting right it would not be affected by the doctrine as the said transfer did not create new right pendente lite. If the sale is a transfer in recognition a preexisting and subsisting right it would not be affected by the doctrine as the said transfer did not create new right pendente lite. " ( 10 ) RELIANCE has also been placed on behalf of the respondent on the decision in Joyram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswamy AIR 1973 SC 569 (at rage 574 paragraph 16) where the Supreme Court observed that the principle of lis pendens does not affect preexisting rights. If there is a valid charge or mortgage on a property this does not vanish because the property becomes subject matter of a partition suit. In Sheikh Bikala v. Sheikh Ali AIR 1950 Orissa 210 where the main controversy was about right to possessions between auction purchasers at sales of prior and puisne mortgages who have not made each other a party, a Division Bench held that there is sufficient authority for the view that a right acquired before the commencement of the suit is not affected by the rule of lis pendens even though the remedy for enforcement of that right may be sought during the pendency of the suit. The same view was taken by Mitra J. in Har Pershad Lal v. Daralmardan Singh ILR 32 Calcutta 891 while discussing effect of sale in execution of mortgage decree and it was followed in Chinnaswami Padayachi v. Darmalinga Padyachi AIR 1952 Madras 566. Although there is distinction between a mortgage and a charge as discussed above, it cannot be disputed that a charge creates a right to recover money out of the property charged to secure payment thereof. In the present case, Binodamoyee's right to recover her maintenance allowance out of the disputed holding was created when it was charged for payment of maintenance to her under the final decree for partition passed in 1949 in Title Suit No. 39 of 1946, long before the suit brought by Howrah Municipality in April 1953 to enforce the statutory charge for arrears of rates arising in or about 1952. Binodamoyee sought remedy for non-payment of maintenance to her by enforcing her right to recover the same in execution of the said partition decree in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953 started in September 1953 and putting the disputed holding to sale. She herself auction purchased the said holding in the court sale on 20. 7. 1954. Binodamoyee sought remedy for non-payment of maintenance to her by enforcing her right to recover the same in execution of the said partition decree in Title Execution Case No. 33 of 1953 started in September 1953 and putting the disputed holding to sale. She herself auction purchased the said holding in the court sale on 20. 7. 1954. This Court sale, in my view, is not hit by the doctrine of lis pendens in view of the principal following through the decisions reported in AIR 1958 SC 838 , AIR 1973 SC 569 and AIR 1950 Orissa 210, that the said doctrine does not affect preexisting rights. ( 11 ) AT the time of her auction purchase binodamoyee had no knowledge actual or constructive of the arrears of rates due in respect of the disputed holding or of the pendency of the sutt brought by the Municipality to recover the arrears of rates by enforcing the statutory charge on the said holding. So, it cannot be said that she allowed the disputed holding to be sold in the court sale held in execution of the decree passed later in the suit by the Municipality. But as the statutory charge for municipal rates is a paramount or superior charge the auction purchase of Binodamoyee was subject to that charge. Howrah Municipality did not; however enforce the statutory charge against Binodamoyee with in the period of limitation. In fact the Municipality did not take any step to impaled Binodamoyee in the suit before the final decree for in the execution proceeding after the final decree although Binodamoyee through her lawyer wrote a letter to Howrah Municipality on 13. 8. 55 intimating her purchase of the disputed holding and asking for mutation of her name as owner thereof. The municipality acknowledged the said letter on 26. 9. 55. Final charge decree was passed in Title Suit No. 1058 of 1955 on 28. 9. 55. Ultimately Binodamoyee's name was mutated in place of Swalzaram Bhowalka on 22. 5. 56. Thereafter, the Municipality filed Title Execution Case No. 56 of 1956 on 20. 9. 1956 to execute the said charge decree and in the court sale held therein Panchanan Bera, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant auction purchased the disputed holding on 12. 3. 1957 and the sale was confirmed on 13. 5. 1957. But Binodamoyee was not impleaded in the proceedings at any stage. 9. 1956 to execute the said charge decree and in the court sale held therein Panchanan Bera, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellant auction purchased the disputed holding on 12. 3. 1957 and the sale was confirmed on 13. 5. 1957. But Binodamoyee was not impleaded in the proceedings at any stage. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant cannot get the aid of the decision in the case of Ramgopal v. Corporation of Calcutta 62 CWN 288 cited on his behalf, in which the auction purchaser of the holding in a charge suit brought by the Corporation of Calcutta to realize rates for a prior period was made a party in the execution case for executing the charge decree to realize rated due in respect of chase some holding for a subsequent period, and the court held that the execution case could proceed against the said auction purchaser overruling his objection raised in an application under S. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no dispute that in the present case if Howrah Municipality made Binodamoyee a party in Title Execution Case No. 56 of 1956, the case could legally proceed against her and she would have got an opportunity to pay off the decrial dues, failing which she would have got an opportunity to pay off the decrial dues, failing which she would have been bound by the court sale of the disputed holding in that case. ( 12 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the appellant on the basis of the Bench decision in the case of Dhirendra Nath v. Santalila Devi AIR 1969 Calcutta 406 that as the charge created by a decree is not a charge created by act of parties or by operation of law within the meaning of S. 100 of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, Order 34 rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure which attracts Order 34 rule 1 does not apply, there could be no question of impleading Binodamoyee in the charge suit of the municipality or at the stage of execution of the decree passed in that suit. But what has been held in the aforesaid decision is that a charge created by a decree can be enforced by executing the decree and not by a separate suit under Order 34 Rule 14 of the Code. But what has been held in the aforesaid decision is that a charge created by a decree can be enforced by executing the decree and not by a separate suit under Order 34 Rule 14 of the Code. Moreover, the fallacy in the argument put forwarded on behalf of the appellant is that the aforesaid decision does not apply to the statutory charge or charge by operation of law which the municipality sought to enforce by instituting Title Suit No. 108 of 1953 and to such suit Order 34 rule 15 which attracts Order 34 Rule 1 applies in full force. On October 29, 1954 Howrah Municipality mutated the name of Swalram who purchased the disputed holding from Sisir Kundu the defendant in the said suit, subject to the charge for maintenance in favour of Binodamoye by a kobala dated 13. 11. 53. The Municipality, thereafter, added Swalram as party defendant in the said suit. It is quite reasonable to presume that in ordinary course of official business the municipal authority inspected the said Kobala mentioning the charge for maintenance in favour of Binodamoye, when Swalram's name was mutated in respect o the disputed holding on the basis of his purchase and thus he municipal authority had notice of the charge. Moreover, there is cogent evidence that Binodamoyee gave notice of her purchase of the disputed holding by a letter-dated 13. 8. 1955 to Howrah Municipality. So, it was incumbent on the part of the municipality to implead her under Order 34 Rule 1 of the Code of in the suit brought by it or at least in the proceeding for execution of the final charge decree passed in the suit. Failure on the part of municipality to do so is good ground, for holding that Binodamoyee was not bound by the charge decree obtained by Howrah Municipality in a suit in which she was not made a party and subsequent sale of the disputed holding in execution of such decree. ( 13 ) I, therefore, find that the points raised on behalf of the appellant to assail the decision of the Court of appeal below are not well founded and cannot prevail. The suit has been rightly dismissed by the two courts below and this appeal must fail. ( 14 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No order is made as to costs. Appeal dismissed.