SARDAR SINGH versus SMT. KRISHNA DEVI AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 717 · Decided: 26-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SARDAR SINGH 
A 
.... 
v. 
SMT. KRISHNA DEVI AND ANR. 
APRIL 26, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.) 
B 
Registration Act, 1908 : Sections 17 and 4'>--Compulsory registration 
; 
of documents-:lmmovable property-Dispute-Arbitrators-Award-Registra-
tion of-When Compulsory-Held unregistered award is not per se inadmis-
sible in evidence-Registration is compulsory if the award creates a title or c 
interest in immova.ble propertyfor the first time-lf it contains a mere dee/a-
ration of a pre-existing right then registration is not compulsory. 
Private Arbitrator-Award pertaining to immovable property-Nature 
of-Held non-testamentary instrument under section 17(/)(b). 
D 
~ 
Specific Relief Act, 1963 : Section 20-Suit for specific peifor-
mance-Coult-l'ower to grant relief is discretionaiy-Conduct of parties may 
> 
disentitle them to relief 
Section !];-Specific peiformance of part of contracr-House-Co-par-
E 
ceners and co-owner brothers in joint possession-Sale by one brothe,-Other 
brother not a party io the agreement-Purchaser not making. enquiries as to 
whether vendor-brother had exclusive title-Suit for specific peifor-
mance-Grant of decree in respect of entire property held not justified-Held 
purchaser was entitled to enforce decree to the extent of half-share of vendor-
t 
brother only. 
F 
The appellant's brother pnrchased a house from the Ministry of 
Rehabilitation for which a sale certificate was issued in bis name. The 
appellant raised a dispute claiming half share in the property which was 
referred to private arbitrators for adjudication. The arbitrators gave their G 
award holding that (i) though the sale deed was taken by the appellant's 
brother in his name benami but actually the appellant and his brother 
were the owners of the said house in equal shares from the date of 
purchase; (ii) the price of the house was contributed half and half by both 
/-,; 
the brothers. The said award was not got registered but on au application 
made by the appellant under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 it was H 
717 
718 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
made a rule of the Court. Thereafter the appellant obtained orders for 
eviction of the tenants from the building in question for his personal 
occupation and consequently got possession also. In the meantime the 
appellant's brother entered into an agreement of sale with the respondent, 
who was bis neighbourer, for the entire property and the latter tiled a suit 
B for specific performance of the contract. The appellant got himself im-
pleaded in the said suit as defendant but the Trial Court negatived bis 
claim that be was owner of half of the property and decreed· the suit in 
respect of entire property holding that (i) the appellant's title was founded 
upon the award to acquire title or to divest the title of the appellant's 
brother; (ii) the award was compulsorily registrable under section 17 of 
C the Registration Act, 1908 and being unregistered it was inadmissible in 
evidence as .a source of title under section 49. On appeal the High Court 
confirmed the decree of the trial court. 
In appeal to this Court Court on the question whether (i) the award 
was compulsorily registrable under section 17 of the Registration Act; and 
D 
(ii) the Courts below were justified in decreeillg the suit for specific 
performance : 
E 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the decree of the High Court, 
this Court. 
HELD : 1. The award did not create any right, title or interest in the 
appellant for the first time, but it declared the pre-existing factum namely 
the. appellant and bis brother purchased the property jointly and that bis 
brother was the henamidar and that both of them bad half share in the 
house with a right to enjoyment of the property in equal moiety. Thus the 
F 
award is not compulsorily registrable. (726-H, 727-A) 
Salish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar, (1969) 2 SCR 244; Ratan Lal 
Shanna v. Purshottam Harit, [1974] 2 SCR 109; Lackman Dass v. Ram Lal 
& Anr., [1989] 2 SCR 250; Uttam Singh Duggal & Co. v. Union of India, CA 
G No. 162 of (1962) decided by Supreme Court on 11.10.1962; Kashinathsa 
Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi, [1961] 3 SCR 792; Cham-
pa/a/ v. Mst. Samarath Bai, [1960] 2 SCR 810; Addanki Narayanappa v. 
Bhaskara Krishtappa, [1966] 3 SCR 400; Commissioner of Income-tax West 
Bengal Calcutta v. Juggi/al Kamalapat, [1967) 1 SCR 784; Kale & Ors. v. Dy. 
Director of Consolidation, [1976) 3 SCR 202 and 

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