The majority of the learned Judges held that if the document were considered as conveying to the petitioner any part or share in her husband 's proprietary right, no such part or share was conveyed to her as the document was not registered and assuming that any such part or share was conveyed, it had become vested in the State under section 3 of the said Act; if the document were considered as a licence coupled with a grant, then the right acquired by the petitioner would be either in the nature of a profit a prendre which being an interest in land was immovable property and would require registration and as the document was not registered, it did not operate to transmit to her any such profit a prendre as held in Ananda Behera 's Case; and if the document were construed as conferring a purely personal right under a contract, assuming without deciding that a contract was property" within the meaning of Article 19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, she could not complain as the State had not acquired or taken possession of the contract which remained her property and as the State was not a party to the contract and claimed no benefit under it, the petitioner was free to sue the grantor upon that contract and recover damages by way of compensation; and assuming the State was also bound by the contract, she could only seek to enforce the contract in the ordinary way and sue the State if so advised and claim whatever damages or compensation she might be entitled to for the alleged breach of it.