Collateral lease covenant survived without registration; later trust deed did not transfer the monthly payment right.

A collateral covenant to pay a fixed monthly sum for ten years, linked to a lease but not forming part of its terms or creating any charge on the property, was held to remain valid without registration and was not barred by the rule against varying a written instrument. The obligation was treated as a personal covenant separate from the lease transaction. The document also explains that the right to receive those instalments did not pass under a later trust deed, because the deed covered only claims then due or payable and existing rights of suit, while the instalments in question accrued later. The later assignment therefore remained effective.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the agreement to pay Rs. 500 per month for ten years was inadmissible or void for want of registration as part of the lease transaction; (ii) Whether the benefit of that agreement passed to the trustee under the trust deed so as to defeat the later assignment and the suit on the instalments.

Issue (i): Whether the agreement to pay Rs. 500 per month for ten years was inadmissible or void for want of registration as part of the lease transaction.

Analysis: The monthly payment agreement was distinct from the lease, created no charge on the property, and was only a personal obligation collateral to the lease. It did not vary the lease terms and was not within the mischief of the rule excluding oral evidence as to the contents of a written instrument. Nor did the Registration Act or the Transfer of Property Act require the collateral arrangement to be registered as part of the lease.

Conclusion: The agreement was valid and enforceable, and was not defeated by lack of registration or by the rule against varying written instruments.

Issue (ii): Whether the benefit of that agreement passed to the trustee under the trust deed so as to defeat the later assignment and the suit on the instalments.

Analysis: The right to the monthly payments did not pass with the zamindari itself because it was not rent. On the language of the trust deed, the assignment extended only to claims and demands then due or payable, together with rights of suit existing at the date of the deed. The instalments sued for accrued after the deed, and the record did not show that the letter embodying the agreement was in the treasury when the deed was executed. The trust deed therefore did not transfer this right.

Conclusion: The right to the monthly payments did not pass under the trust deed, and the later assignment remained effective.

Final Conclusion: The decree dismissing the suit was set aside, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A collateral personal covenant connected with a lease, but not forming part of the lease terms or creating a charge on the property, does not require registration and is not excluded by the parol evidence rule; a later trust deed transfers only such rights as its language clearly covers.

---