Prior contract binds later transferee: possession under a later sale did not become adverse, and redemption was not time-barred.

A subsequent transferee who takes immovable property with notice of a prior enforceable contract holds it subject to that earlier obligation, so possession cannot become adverse merely by asserting title under the later transfer. On that footing, the prior agreement-holders could enforce specific performance against the later transferees, and the mortgagee-purchasers' possession did not bar redemption by limitation. The later conveyance and the omission in execution to join the mortgagee as a conveying party did not alter the underlying rights already determined. The appeal failed, and the decree in favour of the respondents was sustained with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the possession of the mortgagee-purchasers became adverse to the prior agreement-holders so as to bar the suit for redemption by limitation, and whether the prior contract of sale could be enforced against the subsequent transferees.

Analysis: A mortgagor's sale to his mortgagee may validly vest title in the mortgagee as between the parties, but where an earlier contract of sale exists in favour of third parties, the transferee takes subject to the enforceable obligation arising from that prior contract. Under the statutory scheme governing contracts affecting immovable property, a subsequent transferee with notice is bound to hold the property to the extent necessary to give effect to the earlier contract. The possession of the mortgagee-purchasers, therefore, could not be treated as adverse to the prior agreement-holders merely because they asserted ownership under the later sale. The decree for specific performance and the later conveyance did not alter that legal character, and the omission in execution to make the mortgagee a conveying party did not change the substance of the rights already determined.

Conclusion: The suit for redemption was not barred by limitation, and the prior agreement-holders were entitled to enforce their rights against the subsequent transferees.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the decree in favour of the respondents was sustained, with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A transferee who takes property with notice of a prior enforceable contract holds it subject to that obligation, and such possession cannot become adverse to the promisee merely by asserting ownership under the later transfer.

---