9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the suit for partition is barred by Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2. Whether the award covering immovable property is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. 3. Whether an award has any legal value or existence unless made a rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the suit for partition is barred by Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The trial court held that the suit for partition of movable properties is barred by Sections 32 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as it seeks to determine the validity of the award. The court concluded that the suit is maintainable only with respect to immovable properties and not with respect to grains, utensils, and ornaments. The plaintiffs contended that the suit is not susceptible to the mischief of Sections 32 and 33 and is maintainable as a whole. The defendants argued that the trial court should not have distinguished between movable and immovable properties under the award. Issue 2: Whether the award covering immovable property is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The trial court initially held that the award covering immovable property worth Rs. 100 or more is compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and, as the award was not registered, it was inadmissible in evidence for immovable properties. However, the High Court, relying on the Full Bench decision in Sheonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand, concluded that an award, even if it pertains to immovable property worth Rs. 100 or more, does not require registration. Therefore, the part of the trial court's order holding the award inadmissible for immovable property was set aside. Issue 3: Whether an award has any legal value or existence unless made a rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court held that an award given on reference without the intervention of the Court has no legal existence unless it is made a rule of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. The court referenced several cases, including Sia Kishori Kuer v. Bhairvi Nandan Sinha and Lachhuman Singh v. Makar Singh, which supported the view that an award only becomes operative when it is made a rule of the Court. The court concluded that the objection raised by the defendants regarding the maintainability of the suit based on the existence of a non-registered award must fail. Therefore, the plaintiffs' application was allowed to the extent that the suit for partition of movable properties is maintainable. Conclusion: The High Court set aside the trial court's order to the extent that it held the award inadmissible for immovable properties and confirmed that an award has no legal effect unless made a rule of the Court. Consequently, the suit for partition is maintainable for both movable and immovable properties. The case will proceed to trial on other issues raised. No order as to costs was made.
|
