LACHHMAN DASS versus RAM LAL & ANR.

Citation: [1989] 2 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 30-03-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
' 
D 
E 
F 
G 
LACHHMAN DASS 
v. 
RAM LAL & ANR. 
MARCH 30, 1989 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. RANGANATHAN JJ.) 
Arbitration Act, 1940: Sections 14, 30 & 33-Award-Affecting 
immovable property of value more than Rs. JOO-Cannot be looked in 
to by Court-Requirement of registration-Necessity for-Court can-
not pronounce judgment upon such an unregistered award. 
Indian Registration Act: Sections 17, 23, 25 & 49- Unless a 
document is clearly brought within its provisions-Non registration no 
bar to being admitted in evidence-Award affecting immovable pro-
perty valued above Rs. JOO cannot be taken into evidence unless regis-
tered-Subsequent registration whether in conformity or in violation of 
sections 23 & 25-Not relevant. Section 17-A disabling section-To be 
construed strictly. 
By an agreement dated 7 March, 1974, both the appellant and the 
respondent-Ram Lal appointed an arbitrator to adjudicate through 
arbitration their disputes about a plot of land. The arbitrator gave his 
award on 22 May 1974 stating, inter alia, that the land in dispute was in 
the joint name of the appellant and respondent-Ram Lal, and that the 
half ownership of the appellant shall now be owned by Shri Ram Lal in 
addition to his '/z share owned by him in those lands. 
+ 
1 
The arbitrator filed an application before Sub-Judge, II Class for 
)'-' 
making the award the rule of the Court. The appellant tiled objections 
under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, to set aside the award on 1 
various grounds but no point was raised that the award "·as unenforce-
able because it was not properly stamped and not registered. The trial 
court dismissed all the objections taken under section 14 of the Arbitra-
tion Act and made the award the rule of the Court. 
The District Judge, in the appeal tiled by the appellant, came to 
the conclusion that the award declared a right in immovable property 
and since it was unregistered and unstamped it could not be made the 
rule of the Court. 
H 
The High Court, however, allowed the appeal tiled by the res-. 
250 
-
LACHHMAN DASS v. RAM LAL 
251 
pondent on the ground that the award did not create any right in 
immovable property, and that it only admitted the already existing 
rights between the 11rties and hence it did not require any registration. 
The appellant appealed by special leave to this Court. 
During the pendency of the said appeal the award was sul..mitted 
I. for registration on 19 December, 1988 and was registered on 3 
February, 1989. 
On behalf of appellant it was argued that the High Court was 
wrong in looking into an unregistered award, and that its subsequent 
registration was obtained by misrepresentation and misleading the 
authorities did not validate it retrospectively and that the registration 
having been beyond the period of four months was wholly bad. 
On behalf of the respondent the appeal was contested by contend-
A 
B 
c 
ing that the award did not require registration as it did not create, 
declare or assign any new right in the immovable property, but that it D 
merely declared the existing right of ownership of the respondent, that 
the appellant was barred from taking the plea of its being unregistered 
at a later stage as it had not been taken by him before the trial court. It 
was further submitted that the appellant was estopped from agitating 
the question after the lapse of 30 days as is statutorily required under s. 
30 of the Arbitration Act. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: (1) The real purpose of registration is to secure that every 
person dealing with the property, where such document requires regis· 
L !ration, may rely with confidence upon statements contained in the F 
register as a full and complete account of all transactions by which title 
may be affected. Section 17 of the said Act being a disabling section, 
must be construed strictly. Therefore, unless a document is cleafly 
brought within the provisions of the section, its non-registration would 
be no bar to its being admitted in evidence. [259C-D I 
Ramaswamy Ayyar & Anr. v. Thirupathi Naik, ILR XXVII 
Madras p. 43, affirmed. 
G 
(2) On a proper construction of the award, it does appear that the 
award did create, declare or assign a right, title and intcre;t in the 
Immovable property. The award declares that 'lz share of the onwership H 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 2 S.C.R. 
of Shri Lachhman Dass shall "be now owned by Shri Ram Lal, the ~ 
respondent in addition to his 

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