N.KHOSLA versus RAJLAKSHMI (DEAD) AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 906 · Decided: 06-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
N.KHOSLA 
v. 
RAJLAKSHMI (DEAD) AND ORS. 
MARCH 6, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Registration Act, I 908--Section I 7 (I) (b)-Arbitration Act, I 940; 
Section 14--Gift of part of ancestral immoveable property to daughters by 
C father-Father later revoked the gift deed and paid cash to them in lieu of 
the property--Father partitioned the property among his sons-Dispute 
between sons daughters regarding share of the property-Sole Arbitrator 
held in favour of the sons-Sons filed an application before trial court to 
make the award of the arbitrator, a Rule of the Court-Daughters raised 
objections on the ground that it was not registered under the Registration 
D Act-Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the sons-Appellate Court 
and High Court also held against the suns {'orrectness of-Held, on facts, 
the award of the Arbitrator on~y declares the pre-existing right and does not 
create any right in praesenti or in fature· -Hence, the award does not require 
registration and should be made a Rule of the Court-Abatement of appeal 
as against deceased respondent would not abate the appeal qua surviving 
E respondents as the daughters had distinct shares by metes and bounds. 
One D had two sons and three daughters. D had an ancestral property. 
D gifted three plots of land 011t of his ancestral property to his daughters. 
Since none of the daughters took possession of the plots, D revoked the gift 
F deed and resumed the plots by paying cash to each of them in lieu of it. 
Thereafter, D partitioned the entire ancestral property to his two sons. After 
the death ofD, a dispute arose between the sons and daughters regarding the 
gift deed and resumption of the gifted property. The daughters got mutation 
of the gifted plots in revenue records in their names. The dispute was referred 
to a sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator in his award held that the daughters are 
G not entitled to the plots in the ancestral property since D revoked the gift 
deed and resumed the plots by paying cash with their consent The Arbitrator 
further held that the mutation of the plots by the daughters in their favour 
was obt11ined by fraud and therefore, non-est. 
H 
906 
• 
I 
• 
I 
N. KHOSLA v. RAJLAK.SHMI (DEAD) 
907 
Petitioner-sons filed an application before trial court under Section 14 A 
of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to make the award of the Arbitrator, a Rule of 
the Court. Respondent-daughters filed objections, inter alia, contending that 
the award could not be made a Rule of the Court since it was not registered 
under Section 17(1) (b) of the Registration Act, 1908. The trial court 
dismissed the application of the appellants. Appellate Court and High Court 
also held in favour of the respondents. Hence the appeal before this Court. B 
During the pendency of the appeal, one of the respondents died and an 
application, filed for substitution of her legal representatives by the appellant, 
was dismissed by this Court on ground of delay. 
The appellant contended that the dismissal of the application for 
substitution of legal heirs of deceased respondent would not abate the C 
appeal as against surviving respondents-daughters since the gift deed was 
· ' distinct and separate and is executable on them; and that the award of 
the Arbitrator does not create any right or extinguish any right in 
praesenti or in future requiring registration under section 17(1) (b) of the 
Registration Act, 1908 and hence should be made a Rule of the Court. 
D 
The respondents contended that the appeal as against surviving 
respondents also gets abated since the issue is common to all of them; and 
that the award of the Arbitrator created rights in favour of the sons by · 
extinguishing their rights in the immoveable property requiring 
registration and hence the award cannot be made a Rule of the Court. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The facts of the case would clearly show that each of the 
daughters had a distinct and separate share by metes and bounds and also 
.1. 
that each one of them had received Rs. 10,000 in lieu of the plots of land F 
•' l 
and therefore, it cannot be held that abatement of respondent No. 1 would 
abate the appeal qua the other respondents. No common issues among the 
daughters arise because all the sisters had different and distinct share by 
metes and bounds. The abatement of appeal in respect of the deceased 
daughter would not abate the appeal qua other respondents. The appeal G 

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