TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for resolution. The two arbitrators by their award dated 16-10-1963 declared that: We award that Shri Sardar Singh is the owner of half house bearing Municipal No. 313, Ward No. XVI situate at Gali No. 10, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, from the date of purchase of the said house, i.e., from 7-4- 1959 as he paid ₹ 18,100 to Shri Kartar Lal in the shape of claim bonds valued at ₹ 11,560.00 and ₹ 6540.00 in cash towards the purchase price of the said house and Shri Kartar Lal paid half of the price of the said house in the shape of claim bond and cash. The price of the said house was contributed half and half by both of them. Though, the sale deed was taken by Shri Kartar Lal in his name benami but actually Shri Karta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Delhi in RFA No. 206 of 1986 by judgment and decree dated 21-11-1990 confirmed the decree. 3. The courts below found that the appellant's title is founded upon the award to acquire title to or to divest the title of Kartar Lal; it is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and being an unregistered award the same was inadmissible in evidence as source of title under Section 49 thereof. The appellant's claim as owner of the half share in the property was thus negatived. The question, therefore, is whether the award, on the facts and in the circumstances, is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act which reads thus: 17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.- (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ansaction affecting such immovable property. This Court in Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal (1989) 3 SCC 99: (1989) 2 SCR 250, 259 held the purpose of registration that: (SCC p. 106, paras 13 and 14 : SCR p. 259 C D) In other words, it is necessary to examine not so much what it intends to do but what it purports to do. The real purpose of registration is to secure that every person dealing with the property, where such document requires registration, may rely with confidence upon statements contained in the 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 clearly brought within the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court found that in case the award, if it creates for the first time a right in the immovable property of the value of ₹ 100 or above, in the absence of its registration, the awardee would not get title on the award and the title would remain with the party against whom the award was made. The same view was reiterated in Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam Harit (1974) 1 SCC 671 :(1974) 3 SCR 109 and in Lachhman Dass case'. In all these cases this Court found that the title was founded on the award. 7. But as said earlier, the crucial question is what the award purports to do? As seen, the arbitrators in the award dated 19-10-1963 declared that Kartar Lal is benamidar, the appellant had contributed half the consideration of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e rights and liabilities of the parties in respect of the said claims can be determined only on the basis of the said award , and thereafter no action can be started on the original claim which had been the subject-matter of the reference. An award between the parties is entitled to that respect which is due to the judgment of a court of law to serve. Therefore, it was held that the second reference was incompetent. In Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Bhaskarsa Kabadi (1961) 3 SCR 792: AIR 1961 SC 1077 on a question whether an award made in arbitration out of court and accepted by the parties, in the absence of registration, could be pleaded in defence as a binding decision between the parties, this Court held thus: (SCR p. 806) It m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o affect immovable property falling under Section 17 of that Act. 10. In Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishtappa(1966) 3 SCR 400: AIR 1966 SC 1300 (SCR at pp. 410 and 41 1) this Court held that a document of dissolution only records the fact that the partnership had come to an end. It cannot be said to convey any immovable property by a partner to another expressly or by necessary implication, nor is there any implication. It was held that such a deed was not compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. In CIT v. Juggilal Kamalapat (1967) 1 SCR 784: AIR 1967 SC 401 (SCR at p. 790) the deed of relinquishment was accepted by one partner in favour of the other partners in the partnership firm including immov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
