Immovable property interest in future income and sale proceeds requires registration; contract alone creates no enforceable proprietary right.

A beneficial interest under a settlement that includes future income and the ultimate proceeds of sale is treated as immovable property for transfer purposes, so its transfer requires a registered instrument. A contract for the sale of such property, without registration, does not by itself create any proprietary interest or enforceable charge against the Official Assignee, and an asserted trust cannot be sustained without a valid legal basis. The text also notes that estoppel will not arise unless there is a clear and unequivocal representation capable of binding the party said to be estopped. The operative point is that proprietary rights in this setting cannot pass by contract alone without registration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the beneficiary's interest under the settlement, including the right to future income and ultimate proceeds of sale, was immovable property requiring a registered instrument for transfer; (ii) whether the contract of sale, unsupported by a registered transfer, or any trust arising from it, conferred an enforceable interest against the Official Assignee; and (iii) whether the Official Assignee was estopped from denying the plaintiff company's title.

Issue (i): whether the beneficiary's interest under the settlement, including the right to future income and ultimate proceeds of sale, was immovable property requiring a registered instrument for transfer

Analysis: The relevant provisions of the Transfer of Property Act and the registration law were construed in the light of the statutory descriptions of immovable property and the requirement that certain transfers of interests in immovable property be effected by registered instrument. The settlement gave the beneficiary a vested right in future income and a contingent right in the corpus on sale. The Court treated the interest in future rents and profits, and the interest in the ultimate proceeds of sale, as interests in immovable property within the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The beneficiary's interest was immovable property and its transfer required registration.

Issue (ii): whether the contract of sale, unsupported by a registered transfer, or any trust arising from it, conferred an enforceable interest against the Official Assignee

Analysis: A contract for the sale of immovable property was held not to create any interest in or charge on the property. The attempt to treat the vendor as a trustee for the company could not succeed without a valid declaration or other legally sufficient basis, and the Trusts Act provisions relied upon did not assist the plaintiff company on the facts found. The failure to obtain a registered conveyance was fatal to the claim.

Conclusion: No enforceable interest arose in favour of the plaintiff company against the Official Assignee.

Issue (iii): whether the Official Assignee was estopped from denying that the beneficiary's interest had vested in the plaintiff company

Analysis: The alleged estoppel was rejected because the company had advanced litigation expenses on an expressly without-prejudice basis and the subsequent conduct did not amount to an unequivocal representation binding the Official Assignee. The facts did not establish the necessary foundation for estoppel.

Conclusion: No estoppel was established.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the dismissal of the suit by the High Court was upheld because the claimed interest could not pass without registration and no alternative equitable or estoppel-based ground was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Indian transfer and registration scheme, a transferable beneficial interest in future income and sale proceeds derived from immovable property is itself immovable property, and a contract for its sale does not create any proprietary interest without a registered instrument.

---