Unregistered transfer of immovable property failed to pass title, and res judicata was not applied in tax proceedings.

An unregistered agreement promising a future transfer of half share in immovable property did not pass any present right or title and, on its construction as a sale in consideration of dower debt, required a registered instrument to be effective. The document therefore failed to transfer ownership to the assessee's wife, so the entire property continued to belong to the assessee for assessment purposes. The plea based on earlier wealth-tax orders was also rejected because res judicata does not strictly apply in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the agreement dated 1-7-1969 validly transferred half share in the Amravati Road property to the assessee's wife and, if not, whether the whole property continued to be assessable in the assessee's hands.

Analysis: The agreement did not convey any right or title in praesenti and only expressed a promise to transfer the share in future. On its true construction, the attempted transfer was treated as a sale in consideration of dower debt, and such a transfer of immovable property required a registered instrument. As the document was unregistered, it was ineffective to pass title. The plea that the issue was concluded by earlier wealth-tax orders was rejected because res judicata does not strictly apply in tax proceedings.

Conclusion: The purported transfer of half share was invalid and ineffective, and the entire property remained owned by the assessee.

---