9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the award made by private arbitrators is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. 2. The effect of non-registration of the award under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 3. Whether the award creates any right, title, or interest in immovable property. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the award made by private arbitrators is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908: 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. Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act mandates that non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest in immovable property must be registered. The award made by a private arbitrator is considered a non-testamentary instrument under Section 17(1)(b). The Supreme Court in Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar held that an award affecting partition of immovable property requires registration under Section 17(1)(b). Therefore, the award in question is a non-testamentary instrument that required registration. 2. The effect of non-registration of the award under Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908: Section 49 declares that no document required to be registered under Section 17 shall affect any immovable property comprised therein or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property unless it has been registered. The Supreme Court in Lachhman Dass v. Ram Lal emphasized that the purpose of registration is to ensure that every person dealing with the property can rely on the register as a complete account of all transactions affecting the title. The non-registration of the award renders it inadmissible in evidence as a source of title under Section 49. This principle was reiterated in Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam Harit and Lachhman Dass case, where the title was founded on the award. 3. Whether the award creates any right, title, or interest in immovable property: The crucial question is what the award purports to do. The arbitrators' award declared that Kartar Lal is a benamidar and that the appellant had contributed half the consideration of the sale price, making him the owner of half the house from the date of purchase. The contention that the award creates right, title, and interest in favor of the appellant and extinguishes that of Kartar Lal is supported by the fact that the sale certificate was in accordance with the law. The appellant's foundation of title is based on the award, and its non-registration renders it inadmissible as evidence of title. The Supreme Court in Uttam Singh Duggal v. Union of India held that all claims subject to arbitration merge in the award, and after the award is pronounced, rights and liabilities can only be determined based on the award. In Champalal v. Samarath Bai, it was held that an unregistered award cannot be taken into evidence to affect immovable property under Section 17. However, in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishtappa, it was held that a document of dissolution recording the end of a partnership does not convey immovable property and does not require registration under Section 17(1)(b). Similarly, in CIT v. Juggilal Kamalapat, a deed of relinquishment of a partner's interest in partnership assets, including immovable property, was valid without registration. In conclusion, the award in favor of the appellant creates a right, title, and interest in half share of the house, but its non-registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act renders it inadmissible as evidence of title under Section 49. Therefore, the appellant's claim as the owner of the half share in the property is negated due to the award's non-registration.
|
