LexTHEMI P. SIDHWA & ORS. versus SHIB BANERJEE & SONS PVT. LTD. &. ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
· .... .·' A THEMI P. SIDHWA & ORS. 8 c D E v. SHIB BANERJEE~ SONS PVT. LTD. &.ANR. September 3, 1974 [P: ]AGANMOHAN REDDY, M. H. BEG AND A. A~AGIRISWAMI, JJ.] 111dia11 Registration Act, 1908....,...S. 17( l)(b) a11d· 2-Award of Arbitrator relating to partition. of imm?vable property of val11e exceeding Rs. 100-lf r<•q11.ires registration. Various disputes between the parties were referred to a sole arbitratc.r. In an .applictaion under s. 1 S l C.P .C., the point was raised before the High Court that as the award directed partition of immovable property and the va:'lle of the immovable property was mo.-e than one lakh. rupees it required registration under s. 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and as it had not been registered, it was not admissible in evidence and· could not be enforced and 9011ld not confer any rights. A single judge of the High Court held that since the 11ward had not been registered as required by section 17 (I) (b) of the Registration . Act It could not be made a rule of the court under s. 17 of the Arbitration Act. Allowina the appeal, HbLD: .The award falls under s. 17(2)(v) .of the Registration Act ani\ Is, therefore, not ruisterable. The High Court has- proceeded on the basis that the award related to· partition of immovable property of the value exceeding Rs. 100/- and, therefore, came within the ambit of s. 17(1) (b) of the lnJian Registration Act. No doubt it did; but the High Court did not bestow attention on the words of that section and see whether it operated to create rights in the immovable property or whether it 111erely created a right to obtain another document, which will, when llxecuted create any such right. The uward itself did not purport or operate to create, declare, anlan, · limit or' ~tinsuish, whether In presentl or in future any right, title or interest whether vested of contigent of the· value of Rs. lOQ/. and UP' . wards in respct' of immoyable property as contemplated under s. 17(1 )(b) of the Registration Act. It merely created a right to obtain another document which would when executed, create declare, assign, limit or extinauiah any such iaht, title or interest. (2E; 48) .F . Ra/an9am Ayyar v. Ra/anRam A.v.var, SO I.A. 134, Sht.,naraln Lal v. Rameslivlarl Dtvl, C.A. No. 296 of 1960 decided on: 6th December 1952, Sa1l.1/1 Ktimtir v. ,:Surlndtr Kumar, [1969) 2 S.C.R. 244 and Ratan Lal Sliarma v. Purslwllaril Harli, C.A. No. 1625 of 1967 decided on 11th 1anuary, 1974. referred to. G C1VlL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : avil Appeal No. 1350 of 1968. Appeal by special leave from the· judgment and order dated January 17, 1968 of the Delhi High Court in Suit No. 588 of 1966. S. T. Desai, P. C. Bhartarl and K. /. John, for the Appellants. Brljb~ Klshore, V. N. Ganpule and P. C. Kapur, for respondent . No. 1. ll The fudgment of the Court was delivered by · ALAGlRISWAMI, J .-The question for ·decision is whether the award made by· th'l arbitrator in this case is inadmissible in evidence and 2-L25l~u:>Cl/75 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] 2 s.c.R. therefore no decree can. be passed on tJ?-e basis of that award as held by the Delhi High Court. The short facts necessary for decision on this case are these : By an agr,eement dated 25th April, 1961 various disputes and matters in difference between th~ parties were referred to the sole arbi· tration of Mr .. B. K. Daphtary. The arbitrator made his award on 25th April, 1962. It is not necessary to refer to the various stages the matter went through except that the case came to be finally heard by the Delhi High Court. Before that Court by an application filed under section 151 C.P.C. a qm:stion was allowed to be raised that as "the award directs partition of immovable property and the value of this immovable property is more than one lakh it theref.ore requires regis• tration. under s. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Actandthesameis not .admissible in evidence. and cannot be enforced or confer any rights." The learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the matter held that the award, not having been registered _as required by 1'· 17 ( 1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, cannot be made a rule -of the Court under s. 17 of the Arbitration Act. The learned Judge .also held that he would have had no hesitation to follow the cotirse prescribed in s. 38 of the Stamp Act and receive the stamp duty and penalty but for his decision that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.