CAPT. (NOW MAJOR) ASHOK KSHYAP versus MRS. SUDHA VASISHT & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 151 · Decided: 04-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CAPT. (NOW MAJOR) ASHOK KSHYAP 
v. 
MRS. SUDHA VASISHT & ANR. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1987 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.] 
Registration Act, 1908: s.17(J)(b)-Arbitration award-Not 
creating any right of effecting partition in immovable property-
Whether required to be registered. 
A 
B 
Arbitration Act, 1940: ss.15(b), 16(J)(c) and 17-Unregistered C 
award-Whether imperfect in form-Whether could be made a rule of 
the Court-Legality of the award not challenged-Whether could be 
remitted to the Arbitrator. 
Constitution of India: Article 136-Jurisdiction of the Court-To 0 
protect interests of all parties. 
A family dispute between the parties pertaining to movable and 
immovable property left intestate by their father was referred by them 
to arbitration. The award made on February U, 1977 stated: (i) that 
the appellant should pay to the Isl respondent a specified sum, on pay-
E 
ment of which she will have no right to live in the house and also have no 
other interests in the said property as a legal heir; (ii) that till the full 
amount was paid she would be entitled to live in the portion of the house 
in her occupation and not be liable to pay any rent; (iii) that the 2nd 
respondent shall have right of residence in the said house plus right to 
receive from the appellant a specified sum per month as maintenance F 
for life or till she is married; and (iv) that in case of her marriage the 
appellant should pay her the specified sum upon which she will have no 
right to live in the house or get any maintenance. The aforesaid award 
was filed in court on March JO, 1977 and accepted by the appellant and 
the 2nd respondent on May 11, 1977. 
The first respondent filed her objection to the award on October 
l l, 1977 on two grounds: (i) that being unregistered it was incapable of 
being made the rule of the court in terms of s. 17 of the Arbitration Act, 
and (ii) that the second respondent being mentally retarded could not be 
a party to the arbitration proceedings. The High Court upheld the first 
objection but not the second. 
151 
G 
H 
152 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant 
that even if the award was not properly registered as required wider 
s. 17 of the Registration Act, in view of the fact that it was filed within a 
period of one month of its making and since fonr months time was there 
to have the award registered by the arbit,rator the court should have 
exercised its powers undE'r s. lS(b) and s.16( l)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 
B 
1940. For the first respondent it was contended that the award effected 
partition of immovable p1roperty and having not been registered it could 
not be made a rnle of the court. 
Allowing the appeal!, 
C 
HELD: 1.1 The award did not create any right in any immovable 
property,_ nor did it effect partition in any immovable property. It was, 
therefore, not compulsory to register the award. [162G I 
1.2 The award merely indicated the entitlement of the respondent 
in the property and the cessor of their interest in the property on receipt 
D of money. Their right and interest was to cease only on the payment of 
the amount and not otherwise, not even by the operation of the docu-
ment itself. [161B-C] 
1.3 The award only declared that the right of the appellant to get 
the immovable property was dependent upon the payment of the 
E amount by him. A right to the property was not created.by the award 
itself, a right to certain property was declared. A right to get the pro-
perty was declared on the payment of the money. The award did not 
create any right to the property, extinguish any right to the property, 
which was not there. It 11uantified in terms of money the value of that 
F 
right and declared the mdhod of working out those rights. [1620-E] 
Rajangam Ayyar v .. Rajangam Ayyar, AIR 1922 Privy Council p. 
266; Upendra Nath Bose v. Lall and Others, AIR 1940, Privy Council 
p. 222; Sheonarain Lal v. Rameshwari Devi and another, Civil Appeal 
No. 296 of 1960 decided on 6. !2.1962; Satish Kumar & Ors. v. Surinder 
Kumar & Ors., [ 1969] 2 SCR p. 244 and Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshot-
G tam Harit, [ 1974] 3 SCR I" 109, referred to. 
2. The purpose of remitting the award under s. 16( l)(c) of the 
Arbitration Act is to enable the arbitrator to reconsider his decision 
where legality was connected with the decision as contained in the 
award. It must not rela1" to a matter which has no connection with

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.