Satish Kumar v Surinder Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 833

The article is written by Sanjana Suman, a student of Amity Law School, Amity University Jharkhand, Ranchi.

Case Number

Appeal (civil) 822 of 1966

Equivalent Citations

1970 AIR 833, 1969 SCR (2) 240

Bench

Sikri, S.M.

Date of Judgement

27/09/1968

Relevant Act/ Section

Indian Arbitration Act (10 of 1940)

Indian Registration Act (16 of 1908), Sec 17(1)(b)

Facts of the case and Judgement

All that had to be seen for s. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act was whether the award in question purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit, or extinguish any right, title, or interest to or in immovable property, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, whether now or in the future.

252 and Sardooll Singh v. Hari Singh I.L.R.

An arbitrator appointed by the appellants and respondent partitioned their immovable property exceeding the value of Rs.100.

The award required registration.

Samarath Bai, [1960] 2 S.C.R.

The arbitrator requested that the award be made a rule of the court under section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940.

Say that the created right cannot be enforced without additional steps.

If an award has an impact on immovable property, a value of Rs. 100 should be ordered.

HELD per Full Court on the issue of whether the award was admissible in evidence because it was not registered.)

Chamanlal Girdhat Ghanchi v. Dhayabhai Nathubhai Ghandi A.I.R.

100 its registration does get rid of the disability created by s. 49 of the Registration Act.

816 and Kashinathsa Yamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Baskarsa Kabadi, [1961] 3 S.C.R.

After an award is made, no further action on the initial claim that was the subject of the reference can be taken. Prabhu Chand would not receive a title on the reward unless he had registered paperwork, and Sheonarain’s title would remain in the shop.”

Satish Jatindar Rakesh Chand Kaka Surinder Kumar is an Indian businessman. Kumar Kumar (Minor) Smt Nirmal Kanda (Resp. Rani) Reap Lajya Devi Reap Lajya Devi

As a result, in the same controversy, there may be not just one but several registrations for the same title, a circumstance that the Registration Act does not even contemplate.”

According to Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, all that is required is that the award in question purports or operate to create or declare, assign, limit, or extinguish, whether in present or future, any right, title, or interest to or in immovable property worth one hundred rupees or more.

C1/69—17 of the answers given by the Patna Full Bench in Sheo Narain Lal v. Prabhu Chand(1) held that such awards did not need to be registered, but the case was determined on the question of whether the award in question in that instance intended or operated to establish a right, title, or interest worth more than Rs. 100.

Issues before the Court

The issue before us is whether an award made under the Act on a private reference needs registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act if it affects the division of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100.
The claim that the award needed registration and that the arbitrators would not submit it until it was registered is also without merit.

The decision of the Court

The case was then appealed to the High Court. According to Capoor, J., the award affected a partition and required registration under section 17(1)(b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The learned Judge disagreed with the decision of the Patna High Court’s Full Bench in Seonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand, preferring to follow the views expressed by the Bombay High Court in Chimanlal Girdhar Ghanchi v. Dahyabhai Nathubhai Gandhi, the Nagpur High Court in M.A. M. Salamullah Khan v.M. Noorullah Khan, and the Rangoon and by the Calcutta High Court in Nani Bela Saha v. Ram Gopal Saha.

The judgment of the Patna High Court was, however, eventually followed by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sardool Singh v. Hari Singh, ruling, dated November 8, 1966.
The Punjab Full Bench added two more reasons: “Even though an award is registered, it remains a waste paper unless it is made a rule of the Court.” As a result, registration has no bearing on its effectiveness or competence. Section 32 of the I.L.R. 37 Pat.252. The 248 Arbitration Act is specific in that no right can be established on an award as such after the 1940 Arbitration Act comes into force; it is not argued and could not be that the Court has the jurisdiction, under section 16, to remit the award from time to time. If the registration of an award is required before it can be made a rule of the Court under section 17, then every time an award is remitted and a new award is made, the new award must be registered. As a result, in the same controversy, there could be not one but several registrations for the same title, a situation that the Registration Act does not even contemplate.”

Latest Posts

Archives