Judgment

SIKRI, J. (On behalf of himself and Bachawat, J.) :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated April 27, 1965, the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh (S. B. Capoor, J.) dismissing Civil Revision No. 841 of 1964. The Civil Revision arose out of the following facts.

2. The following pedigree table shows the relationship between the parties:

3. On the death of Sohan Lal, Behari Lal, was appointed as arbitrator by Harbans Lal, Surinder Kumar (then a minor through his mother Smt. Lachmi Devi) and Smt. Gujri, widow of Sohan Lal for partition of the joint property. Behari Lal, by his award dated October 21, 1956, divided the property into two equal shares, between Harbans Lal and Surinder Kumar. Harbans Lal and Surinder Kumar signed the award. Harbans Lal died on May 20, 1960, upon which Surinder Kumar filed a suit for partition of the properties, the subject-matter of the award. This suit was dismissed as withdrawn on March 13, 1962. On March 11, 1962, Behari Lal, arbitrator filed an application under Section 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act 1940 (X of 1940) - hereinafter referred to as the Act - for filing the award in Court and for making the same a rule of the Court. Surinder Kumar entered appearance and filed objections under Section 30 of the Act. One of the objections was that the award dated October 21, 1956, was not admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp and registration and could not, therefore, be made a rule of the Court. On January 31, 1963, the objections were dismissed by Miss Harmohinder Kaur, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, as time-barred, but she did not make the award a rule of the Court as there was a further objection to the effect that the award not having been executed on a properly stamped paper and not having been registered, was not admissible in evidence. This objection was dealt with by Shri Om Prakash Saini, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, who, by his order dated June 5, 1963, held that the award in question was not admissible in evidence as it was executed on deficiently stamped paper and was not registered. He accordingly dismissed the application.

4. An appeal was taken to the District Judge, and the Additional District Judge, by his order dated November 23, 1964, upheld the order of the Subordinate Judge. A revision was then taken to the High Court. Capoor, J., held that the award actually effected a partition and required registration under S. 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The learned Judge dissented from the decision of a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Seonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand, ILR 37 Pat 252 and preferred to follow the view expressed by the Bombay High Court in Chimanlal Girdhar Ghanchi v. Dahyabhai Nathubhai Gandhi, AIR 1938 Bom 422, by the Nagpur High Court in M. A. M. Salamullah Khan v. M. Noorullah Khan, AIR1939 Nag 233 at p. 235, by the Rangoon High Court in U Keltaha v. U Pannawa, AIR 1940 Rang 228 and by the Calcutta High Court in Nani Bela Saha v. Ram Gopal Saha, AIR 1945 Cal 19 at pp. 21, 22. He accordingly dismissed the revision petition.

5. The decision of the Patna High Court was, however, later followed by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sardool Singh v. Hari Singh, ILR (1967) 1 Punj & Har 622, judgment dated November 8, 1966.

6. The question which arises before us is whether an award given under the Act on a private reference requires registration under Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, if the award effect partition of immovable property exceeding the value of Rs. 100/-. The main reason given by Sinha, J., speaking for the Patna Full Bench in ILR 37 Pat 252 for holding that such an award does not require registration is that under the scheme of the Act a private award, unless a decree is passed in terms of the award, has no legal effect. This, according to him, follows, from the conclusion that once a matter has been referred to arbitration, it comes within