Rambriksh Prasad vs Shyamsunder Prasad Sahu And Ors. on 14 January, 1958
In terms it has to be admitted that it does not apply for under that Act there is no provision made anywhere at one place as to the doctrine of a covenant running with the land barring, no doubt, the few special instances of it that are provided here and there in some of its Sections like 52 (2), 65 and 108 (c). But because of the established view that the Transfer of Property Act is not exhaustive on the subject it deals with, the courts in India acting on the rule of justice, equity and good conscience have uniformly imported this principle of common law even in those cases which are directly covered by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act with the result that the English common law general rule that the burden of a covenant affecting land does not run with the land applies in this country also; so also the rule that in the case of landlord and tenant the burden of a covenant runs with the land. That this is so is evident from the decisions in Deyal Singh v. Promatha Nath, AIR 1936 Pat 493 (N), Kumar Chandra v. Narendra Nath, AIR 1930 Cal 357 (O), Hooghly Bank Ltd., Calcutta v. Mahendra Nath, AIR 1950 Cal 195 (P), Saradakripa Lala v. Bepin Chandra Pal, 37 Cal L. J. 538: (AIR 1923 Cal 679) (Q), Central Bank and Building Society Ltd. v. Sailender Kumar Roy Chowdhury, AIR 1955 NUC (Cal) 2080 (R) and Nabjan Sardar v. Neburali Molla, AIR 1933 Cal 506 (S) some of which relate directly to the question of zare chaharam.