JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :— Special leave granted.

2. This appeal is from the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 22nd April, 1988. The dispute was between the two brothers. Both the parties appointed one Shri Ajit Singh as the Arbitrator on 7th March, 1974 for settlement of the dispute about 242 killas of land situated near Chandni Bagh, Panipat in the State of Haryana. The said land stood in the name of the appellant; According to the respondent, Ram Lal, it was benami in the name of the appellant. That was the dispute. The arbitrator gave his award on 22nd May, 1974 and moved an application on 23rd September, 1974 before the Court of Sub-Judge IInd Class, Panipat, for making the award the rule of the Court. The application was registered in the said Court and notice was issued to the appellant herein on 7th November, 1974. Objections were filed by the appellant taking various grounds. It was contended that the appellant had informed the sole arbitrator through registered notice and by a telegraphic notice that he had no faith in the said arbitrator and had thus repudiated his authority to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. It was also contended that the award was lop-sided, perverse, and totally unjust and against all canons of justice and fair play. It was alleged that the arbitrator had acted in a partisan manner. He never heard the claim of the appellant and never called upon him to substantiate his claim and had acted-as an agent of the respondent. It was, therefore, prayed by the appellant that the award be set aside. It may be mentioned that no point was raised that the award was bad and unenforceable because it was not properly stamped nor any plea was taken that the award was an unregistered one and as such could not be made the rule of the court.

3. Several issues were framed. No issue was, however, framed on the ground that the award was bad because it was not properly stamped or that it was not registered. The appellant, who was respondent No. 2 in the said proceedings before the learned trial Judge, gave his version about the repudiation of the authority. The learned trial Judge had however, held that the appellant had failed to prove that he had repudiated the authority of the arbitrator to enter upon the arbitration through registered notice or otherwise before the arbitrator announced his award. It was further held that the award of the arbitrat or was not liable to be set aside on the grounds taken. The objections were treated as objections under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and it was filed within the limitation period. In that view of the matter, the learned Sub-Judge IInd Class, Panipat by his order dated 28th July, 1977 dismissed the objections under S. 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and made the said award the rule of the court.

4. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant went up in first appeal before the Additional District Judge, Karnal. The learned Additional District Judge, while dealing with the contentions of the appellant, held that the a application was properly filed. A point was taken before the first Appellate Court that the award was on an unstamped paper and as such could not be made the rule of the court.

5. The learned District Judge held that the award has not been properly stamped and as such could not be made the rule of the court. It was also contended before the learned District Judge that the award was unregistered and as such it could not be made the rule of the court as it affected immovable property of more than Rs. 100/-. The learned District Judge after analysing the provisions of S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) came to the conclusion that the award declared right in immovable property and since it was unregistered, it could not be made the rule of the court. The learned District Judge, however, also came to the conclusion that the authority of the arbitrator had been repudiated. This ground no lon