which the plaintiff could continue to dig and carry-away sand from the land. The plaintiff brought this action claiming exclusive right to dig and carry away sand from the land. He con- tended that the grant of 1957, gave him absolute legal estate in the land. In the course of his judgment, Duffus J., observed: 'The lease does in my view grant the plaintiff an exclusive right to dig sand in this river. This grants the plaintiff a legal estate but it must be subject to any exist- ing tenancy or equitable rights of which he had notice. I am satisfied that the plaintiff had actual notice of the defendant's occupation ... Apart from this, the defendant's possession and use of his rights to dig sand has been openly carried out, and possession of a tenant is notice to a purchaser of the actual interest he may have. The equity of the tenant in possession extends not only to interests connected with his tenancy, but also to interests under collateral agreements. See (G. B. Ollivant Ltd. v. Alakija (1950) 13 WAC.A 63, 67; Barnhart v. Greenshields (1893) 9 Moo P.C.C. 18). Thus, where a purchaser is presumed to be affected with constructive notice of the tenant's possession, he is further presumed to have had the notice of the contents of the instrument (if any) under which the tenant occupies the property. A purchaser who proposes to buy the reversion of a lease is bound to inquire on what terms the lessee is in possession. The mere fact that he is misinformed as to the contents of the lease may not be sufficient to relieve him of the duty imposed on a purchaser to make enquiry as may be reasonably necessary in the circumstance.' In Patman v. Harland (1881) 17 Ch.D. 353, Jessel, MR. said: “Now it has been argued before me that if the lessee, having this constructive notice,