Under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, where on a transfer of property, an interest therein is…

The transferee may receive and dispose of the absolute interest without the repugnant direction. Section 11 preserves the interest while overriding that direction; its separate protection for directions benefiting another property is not triggered by any stated fact.

Why not "He shall be entitled to pay a mutually agreed consideration to remove the restriction."? Section 11 does not require the transferee to negotiate a payment to remove a direction repugnant to the absolute interest. The relevant entitlement follows from the statute itself. Introducing a mutually agreed consideration therefore adds a condition that the general rule in the question does not impose.

Why not "He shall be bound to enjoy the interest only in such particular manner."? This response makes the repugnant direction binding and consequently reverses the first paragraph of section 11. The question states an absolute interest followed by a direction about its enjoyment. It does not state a direction securing beneficial enjoyment of another property, which receives separate statutory treatment.

Why not "Such transfer of property is void ab initio."? The statutory consequence does not invalidate the transfer from the beginning. Instead, the absolute interest remains available to its holder and the inconsistent direction is disregarded under the general rule. Treating the whole transaction as void confuses a restriction on enjoyment with the validity of the transferred interest.