Ananda Behera v State of Orissa (1955)

Transfer of Property · What May Be Transferred

Facts.

The petitioners had, for large sums, obtained from the Raja of Parikud the exclusive right to catch and carry away all the fish from specified areas of the Chilka lake for a number of years. When the estate vested in the State of Orissa under the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, the State refused to honour the rights, and the petitioners moved the Supreme Court under Article 32.

Issue.

Was the right to catch and carry away fish from the lake a right in movable or immovable property, and had it been validly created?

Held.

The Supreme Court held that a right to catch and carry away fish is a profit à prendre — a benefit arising out of land — and is therefore immovable property. Being worth more than Rs. 100, it could be created only by a registered instrument (s.54); an unregistered oral grant passed no title, so the petitioners had no enforceable right against the State.

Why it matters.

It is the leading authority that intangible benefits arising out of land (fishery, ferry, the right to collect rents or forest produce) are immovable property, and that transfers of them must meet the writing-and-registration formalities — the foundation of Unit I’s first topic.

📄 Full Transfer of Property notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · All landmark cases · All Transfer of Property topics