SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant in this appeal. The facts of the case are that one vyasaraya, was the brother of the plaintiff Smt. Krishnaveniamma. In o. s. No. 134/38 it was decided that the plaintiff shall be entitled to maintenance from vyasaraya. The defendant herein purchased 7 acres 67 cents of land from vyasaraya, the brother of the plaintiff. The sale deed dated 20th october, 1970, provided that the vendee namely, the defendant, shall be liable to pay 5 muras of rice each year to the plaintiff Smt. Krishnaveniamma. It appears that the aforesaid vyasaraya also executed a deed of settlement dated 20th october, 1970, which mentioned the fact that he had transferred to the plaintiff his right to recover 5 muras of rice from the vendee for the maintenance of his sister, the plaintiff. In the said deed of settlement, the right to recover 5 muras of rice was settled in favour of the plaintiff. This appears from a reading of the sale deed as also the deed of settlement. The defendant purchased from vyasaraya the land measuring 7 acres 67 cents, agreeing to pay 5 muras of rice per year, and was made personally liable for the payment which was a charge on the lands sold. Under the deed of settlement, the defendant transferred the right to collect 5 muras of rice every year to the plaintiff. It appears that there was default in payment of the annuity, in the year 1972, which resulted in filing of a suit being o. s. No. 468/1972. Later, the parties settled their disputes out of court, and therefore the suit was not proceeded with. ( 2 ) FURTHER, it appears that on 1st of march, 1974, some of the lands vested in the state of Karnataka under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, with the result, that the defendant was left with only 1 acre 3 cents of land sold to him. The defendant did not give to the plaintiff 5 muras of rice, which was due on 30th march, 1976. This led to the filing of the instant suit. The courts below have decreed the suit. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged before me that the courts below have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit. This led to the filing of the instant suit. The courts below have decreed the suit. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged before me that the courts below have committed an error of law in decreeing the suit. Having regard to the fact that a major portion of the lands sold to the defendant have vested in the state of karnataka, under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the only right which the plaintiff has is to make a claim under the Act, claiming the equivalent amount from out of the compensation payable under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. ( 4 ) I shall first consider whether the defendant is under a personal liability to pay 5 murasof rice to the plaintiff regardless of the charge on the land. The sale deed no doubt says that the defendant shall be liable to pay 5 muras of rice to the plaintiff and that it shall be a charge on the lands sold. The sale deed creating such liability cannot be enforced by the plaintiff, because, she is not a party to the sale deed. The liability therefore, cannot be enforced by the plaintiff. However, the charge on the land remains under the deed of settlement and the sale deed. As observed earlier the vendor vyasarao, the brother of the plaintiff, made a settlement in favour of the plaintiff conferring upon her, the right to claim 5 muras of rice from the defendant. The sale deed also recites the fact that the lands were sold subject to the charge. Since, the defendant took the land subject to the charge, such a charge runs with the land and the defendant cannot deny the claim of the plaintiff who is entitled to enforce the charge. ( 5 ) THE subsequent events may now be noticed. A major part of the lands vested in the state of karnataka, under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. In respect of lands so vested, the defendant will be entitled to compensation from the state of karnataka, as is provided under the act. In view of the Provisions of Section 73 read with Section 100 of Transfer Of Property Act, where land subject to a charge is compulsorily acquired undar the Provisions of any law, the charge against such land must be enforced against the substituted security. In view of the Provisions of Section 73 read with Section 100 of Transfer Of Property Act, where land subject to a charge is compulsorily acquired undar the Provisions of any law, the charge against such land must be enforced against the substituted security. In this case the substituted security is the compensation payable to the defendant. The plaintiff therefore has a right to make such a claim from the state of karnataka, and if made in accordance with law, the state of Karnataka shall grant relief to the plaintiff in accordance with law after quantifying the amount of compensation, to which the plaintiff may be found entitled out of the amount payable to the defendant by way of compensation for the acquisition of the lands. ( 6 ) SINCE, the entire lands have not been acquired, and only a portion has been acquired,it would be necessary, to make an apportionment and to fix liability on the defendant having regard to the extent of land retained by him which is subject to the charge. For this purpose, necessarily the matter has to be remanded to the court of munsiff, karkala, dakshina kannada. ( 7 ) IN this result, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the courts below, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the court of munsiff, karkala, who shall apportion the liability of the defendant for satisfaction of the charge, against the lands remaining in possession of the defendant. He shall, having regard to the extent of the lands and other things such as house etc. , on such lands, apportion the liability of the defendant and pass a decree accordingly. In respect of the lands which have vested in the state of karnataka, the plaintiff may file a claim application under the Provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and the concerned authorities shall deal with such application in accordance with law, having particular regard to the Provisions of sections 50 to 52 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. There shall be no order as to the costs. Appeal partly allowed. --- *** --- .