1947 (2) TMI 22 - DSC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Execution and validity of the will.
2. Validity of the arbitration award.
3. Application of res judicata.
4. Requirement of registration for the arbitration award.
5. Whether the arbitration award constituted a family settlement.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Execution and Validity of the Will:
The court examined whether Bhaiya Baleshwar Datt executed a will on 17th March 1933. The court found that the will was "proved to have been duly and intelligently executed and attested." There was no reliable evidence to support allegations of undue influence by Babu Gur Charan Lal or that Baleshwar Datt was feeble-minded or coerced. The court concluded that the will was a natural disposition of Baleshwar Datt's property and was free from suspicious circumstances.

2. Validity of the Arbitration Award:
The court considered whether the arbitration award was valid and binding. The award was challenged on grounds of coercion, fraud, and misconduct by the arbitrators. The court found no evidence of coercion or misconduct by the arbitrators. It was held that the reference to arbitration was made voluntarily by Gangotri Datt and could not be revoked unilaterally. However, the court noted that the revenue courts could not refer a dispute relating to title to arbitration, and thus, the award did not bind the parties in a civil suit.

3. Application of Res Judicata:
The court addressed whether the decision in the Encumbered Estates Act case operated as res judicata in the civil suit. It was held that "neither Section 11, Civil P.C., nor Section 207, U.P. Land Revenue Act, barred the claim of Gangotri Datt under the Encumbered Estates Act." The court reiterated that the decision of the mutation case did not operate as res judicata for civil litigation.

4. Requirement of Registration for the Arbitration Award:
The court analyzed whether the arbitration award required registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act. It was concluded that the award "purports to create in both Girja and Gangotri rights in respect of the portions allotted to them," and thus, required registration. The award was not exempt from registration under Section 17(2)(vi) as it was not incorporated into the mutation order in a manner that would exempt it from registration.

5. Whether the Arbitration Award Constituted a Family Settlement:
The court examined whether the arbitration award amounted to a family settlement and thus did not require registration. It was held that while family settlements recognizing pre-existing titles do not require registration, the award in question operated to change the relations of the parties to the property and thus required registration. The court concluded that the award did not constitute a family settlement exempt from registration requirements.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed both appeals, upholding the trial court's decision that the will was validly executed and attested, and that the arbitration award, not being registered, could not affect the civil rights of the parties. The court also confirmed that the decision in the Encumbered Estates Act case did not operate as res judicata in the civil suit.