LexSATISH KUMAR & ORS. versus SURINDER KUMAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SATISH KUMAR & ORS. A v. SURINDER KUMAR & ORS. September 27, 1968 [S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] B Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940)-Award in respect of property over Rs. 100-Registration if compulsory. Indian Registration Act (16 of 1"908), s. 17(1) (b)-Award in respect of immovable property over Rs. 100-Registration if compulsory . • An arbitrator appointed by the appellants and respondent partitioned their immovable property exceeding the value of Rs. 100. The arbitrator applied nnder s. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 to the Court for making the award a rule of the court. On the question whether the award was admissible in evidence as it was not registered, HELD: (per Full. Court.) The award required registration. (Per Sikri and Bachawat, JI.) All claims which are the subject matter c of a reference to arbitration merge in the award which is pron.onnoed in D the proceedings before the arbitrator and after an award has been pro- nounced, the rights and liabilities of the parties in respect of the said claims can be determined only on the basis of the said award. After an award is pronounced, no action can be started on the original claim which had been the subject matter of the reference. The position nnder the Act is in no way different from what it wa~ before the Act came into force. Therefore. the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on ·a court under the Arbitration Act does not make an award any less binding than it was E under the provisions of the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Pro- cedure. The filing of an unregistered award under s. 49 of the Registra- tion Act is not prohibited : what is prohibited is that it cannot be taken into evidence so as to affect immovable property falling under s. 17 of the Registration Act. It cannot be said that the registration does not in any manner add to its efficacy or give it added competence. If an award affects immovable propertv order the value of Rs. 100 its rej!istration F does get rid of the disability created by •. 49 of the Registration Act. The award in question was not a mere waste paper but had some legal effect and it plainly purports to affect or affects oropertv within the meaning of ·s. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act [248 F-H; 249 F, 250 E] Mis. Uttam Sin11h DuP.al & Co. v. Union of India, C.A. No. 162 of 1962 dated 11-10-1962. Champa/al v. Mst. Samarath Bai, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 810. 816 and Kashinathstt Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Baskarsa Kabadi, [1961] 3 S.C.R. 792, 806, followed. Sheonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand, I.L.R. 37 Pat. 252 and Sardool Singh v. Hari Singh, I.LR. [1967] 1 Punj. & Har. 622 disapproved. Chamanlal Girdhar Ghanchi v. Dhtiyabhai Nathubhai Ghandi A.I.R. 1938 Born. 422, M. A. M. Salamullah Khan v. M. Noorul/ah Khan, A.I.R. 1939 Nag. 233, Keltaha v. U. Pannawa A.LR. 1940 Rang. 228, G Nani Bela Sahli v. Ram Gopal Saha. A.LR. 1945 Cal. 19 and Bhajaharl H Saha Banikya v. Behary Lal Basak, 33 Cal. 881, approved. (Per Hel!de. J. concurring) : It is one thing to say that a right is not created. it is an entirely different thing to. say that the right created can- • • t- A • • B c D • • G • ... H • SATISH KUMAR v. SURINDER KUMAR (Sikri, J.) 245 not be enforced without further steps. An award does create rights in that property but those rights cannot be enforced until the award is made a decree of the Court. For the purpose of s. 17 (I )(b) of the Registra- tion Act, all that had to be seen is whether the award in question purport or operate to create or declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or future any right, title or interest whether vested or qontingent of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards to or in immovable pro- perty. Since it does, it is compulsorily registerable. [252 B-D] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 822 of 1966. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 27, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No. 841 of 1964. Sarjoo Prasad, D. N. Mishra and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. A. K. Sen, S. V. Gupte, B. P. Maheshwari and R. K. Mahesh- wari, for respondent No. 1 The Judgment of S. M. SIKRI and R. s. BACHAWAT was deli- vered by SIKRI, J. K. S. HEGDE, J., delivered a separate Opinion. Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment, dated April 27, 1965, of the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh (S. B. Capo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.