JUDGMENT Kanhaiya Lal, J.
1. A mortgage-bond was executed by Sukhraui, the first defendant, in favour of the plaintiff on the 25th. of May 1917, whereby he hypothecated his future sugarcane crop for the years 1325 to 1327 Fasli The dispute in the present appeal relates to the sugarcane crop of 1327 Fasli, which has been appropriated by the defendant-appellant No. 5, under a sale effected in his favour by defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4, who are stated to have purchased the same from defendant No. 1. The question for consideration in this appeal is, whether the mortgage can be enforced against the defendant-appellant. A mortgage of a future crop, neither sown nor cultivated at the time, is recognised and enforced in this country as an executory agreement, binding on the parties to the transaction. The transaction is not governed by the Transfer of Property Act or by the Indian Contract Act, in so far as it is neither a mortgage of immoveable property nor a pledge of existing moveable property. It is, to use the language adopted in Misri Lal v. Mozhar Hossain 13 C. 262 : 6 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 674, in the nature of an agreement to mortgage immoveable property that may come into existence in future and is such it creates an equitable charge which is valid and enforceable. But, as pointed out in Bamidhar v. Sant Lal 10 A. 133 : A.W.N. 1888) 35 : 6 Ind. Dec : (N.S.) 90 and Sreeram Narasiah v. Bammireddi Venkataramiah 47 Ind. Cas. 976 : 35 M.L.J. 450 : 8 I.W. 517 : (1918) M.W.N. 718 : 24 M.L.T. 454 : 42 M. 59, a bona fide purchaser of such property without notice of the prior charge is not liable for the money due on such a charge, for the interest of the charge-holder is more or less of the nature of an equitable interest, which it would be undesirable to enforce against a person who was not a party to the contract and had no notice of the sale. The defendant appellant denied that he had a notice of the charge and the question of notice must, therefore, be tried before any liability can be fastened on him in respect of the money due thereon. The defendant-appellant was added as a party on the application of the plaintiff after the institution of the suit. The circunstances in which he made the purchase are not quite clear. In fact the title-deed, if any, under which he purchased has not been produced. The lower Appellate Court is, therefore, directed to determine, after taking such additional relevant evidence as the parties may adduce, whether the defendant-appellant purchased the sugarcane crop in question or its juice, and had he any notice of the mortgage in suit at the time of such purchase?
2. Three months' time will be allowed for the return of the finding and ten days will be allowed after the receipt of the finding for the parties to file objections.