Judgment

DWIVEDI, J. :- Before us there is this associate litigation the civil appeal and the special leave petition for admission. Its history runs thus: There is the New Bengal Engineering Works. It has a factory and various movable and immovable properties. It is a running business. The business was set up by the appellant and the respondent as partners in December, 1962. As usual with many partnerships, the partners did not march in step for long. Within six months they fell out. On August 22, 1963, they could, however, agree to refer their disputes to the arbitration of two persons, Sri R. N. Sharma, and Sri C. M. Sharma. The agreement is in writing. It referred "the disputes of our concern" and gave "the arbitrators full authority to decide our dispute". The arbitrators gave their award on September 20, 1963. They filed the award in the High Court on November, 9, 1963. On September, 10, 1964 the respondent filed an application for determining the validity of the agreement and for setting aside the award. On May 27, 1966 a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the application as time-barred. But he declined the request of the appellant to proceed to pronounce judgment according to the award. From this part of the order the appellant filed an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed as unmaintainable by a Division Bench. The appellant has now preferred the present appeal against the decision of the Single Judge declining to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award. He has also filed the special leave petition against the judgment of the Division Bench.

2. We shall first take up the civil appeal. The Special Leave Petition will become infructuous or anaemic after our decision for or against the appellant. The learned Single Judge refused to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award because (1) according to him the award was void for uncertainty, and (2) the award, which created rights in favour of the appellant over immovable property worth over Rs. 100/- required registration and was unregistered. Counsel for the appellant has advanced three arguments: (1) the award is not void for uncertainty; (2) the award seeks to assign the respondent s share in the partnership to the appellant and so does not require registration; and (3) under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, the Court was bound to pronounce judgment in accordance with the award after it had dismissed the respondent s application for setting it aside.

3. It is not necessary to express any opinion on the first argument as we are of opinion that the award requires registration and, not being registered is inadmissible in evidence for the purpose of pronouncing judgment in accordance with it. So we pass on to the remaining two arguments of the appellant.

4. It is well settled now that the share of a partner in the assets of the partnership which has also immovable properties is movable property and the assignment of the share does not require registration under Section 17, Registration Act. (see Ajudhia Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sunder AIR 1947 Lah 13 at p. 20 (FB); Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, (1966) 3 SCR 400 at pp. 406 and 407 and Commr. of Income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Juggilal Kamalapet) (1967) 1 SCR 784 at p. 790. But the award with which we are concerned does not seek to assign the share of the respondent to the appellant either in express words or by necessary implication. We set out the relevant portion of the award:

"(We) make our award as follows:

(1) The factory and all assets and properties of New Bengal Engineering Works are exclusively allotted to Dr. Ratan Lal Sharma, who is absolutely entitled to the same. He will pay all liabilities of the factory.

(2) Dr. Ratan Lal Sharma shall have no claim for the receipts signed by Sri Purushottam Harit.

(3) Payment of all cheques issued by Dr. Ratal Lal Sharma on behalf of Modern Processors to Shri Purshottam Harit shall be treated valid.

(4) Dr. Ratan Lal Sharma shall pay Rs. 17,000/-