RAJES KANTA ROY vs SANTI DEBI

The Supreme Court held that under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the appellant had a vested interest in the properties allotted to him, although enjoyment was contingent upon the discharge of the settlor's debts and the provision of alternative accommodation for his brother. The Court clarified that a compromise decree allowing for both a personal remedy and a charge permits the decree-holder to pursue the personal remedy while reserving the right under the charge, depending on the intention expressed in the decree. The appeal was decided in favor of the appellant, affirming his vested interest despite the restrictions.