Back
High Court Of Delhi
SARDAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA DEVI - Respondent
First Appeal Order 206 of 1986
Decided On : 11/21/1990
REGISTRATION ACT, 1908 - Sections 17(1) & 49 — Appeal against judgment and decree of ADJ decreeing suit in favor of Respondent No. 1 — Arbitration award — Award transformed into a decree not compulsorily registerable — Decree exempt from registration — Award which purports to create any rights, title or Interest in immoveble property cannot be enforced unless award registered and followed by decree of Court validity passed — Appeal dismissed — Judgment of trial court upheld.
HELD :
A conjoint reading of Sections 17(1)(b) and 49 leave no manner of doubt that any award or non-testamentary instrument which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit of extinguish any right, title or interest in any immovable property of the value of Rs. 100/- and above is required to be registered, otherwise the instrument will not be received in evidence of any transaction affecting such property and the same would be hit by the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act.
We are clearly of the view that the award in question purported to create rights in the immovable property although it may be a different thing to say that these rights cannot be enforced unless the award was registered and followed by a decree of the court validly passed.
Section 49 of the Registration Act has the effect of robbing an arbitration award or any document of its effectiveness, if it is not registered though required to be registered under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act or under the Transfer of Property Act, The effect of non-registration is that the document cannot be admitted in evidence in view of specific bar of Section 49 of the Registration Act. An award which falls within the purview of Section 17(1)(b) & (e) of the Registration Act cannot be made a basis for passing a decree of the Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act as such an award cannot be received by the Court in evidence. Since in the instant case, as is quite apparent from the decree the award fell within the four corners of Section I7(1)(b) of the Registration Act, the same was required to be registered before the court could validly look into it for the purpose of passing a decree in terms of Section 17 of the Arbitration Act. Since no decree can be passed on the basis of an award which requires registration as a sequitur such a decree would be non est in the eye of law. It would be a decree which the court would not be competent to pass.
Since the award was made a rule of the court, the decree which followed was not required to be registered in terms of Section 17(2) (vi) of the Registration Act is not well founded.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of the trial court is upheld. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, dated May 5, 1116 is Civil Suit No. 2 of 1983 whereby the laid suit insstituted by respondent No. 1 agaist the appellant and respondent No. 2 for specific pefomance of the agreement for sale of home bearing No. 313 Ward No. XVI, build on a leasehold plot, comprised in Khasra No. 180/37/36/33, admeasuring 222 sq. yards, situate in Block AC, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the property) was decreed in favour of respondent No. 1. The salient facts giving rise to this appeal are.
( 2 ) THE property was purchased for a sum of Rs. 36,200. 00 by respondent No. 2, a displaced person, on April 7, 1959 in a public auction held by the Regional Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi in pursuance of the powers conferred upon him under Section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation. and Rehabilitation) Act, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). On January 22, 1963 sale certificate in respect of the leasehold property was issued by the Settlement Commissioner in favour of respondent No. 2 exclusively to the extent of full share, under the provisions of Rule 90 (15) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Rules, 1955. (hercinafter referred to as the Rules ) in the form specified in Appendix XXIII thereto.
( 3 ) BY an agreement dated January 15, 1973 ( the agreement for short) respondent No. 2 undertook to sell the property to the husband of respondent No. 1, Shri Joginder Nath for a sum of Rs. 90. 000. 00. The agreement records the receipt of a sum of Rs. 15000/ by respondent No. 2 as earnest money from Shri Joginder Nath According to the terms and conditions of the agreement the sale deed was required to be executed by May 30, 1973. Subsequently, by mutual consent of the partics to the agreement the time limit for execution of the sale deed was extended upto December 31, 1976. The agreement was followed by another agreement dated December 18 1974 between the same parties, which further extended the period for registration of the sale deed upto December 31, 1977. After the death of the said Sbri Joginder Nath in 1978 another agreement to sell dated December 6, 1978 (hereinafter called the subsequent agreement ) Exhibit P. 7, was executed by respondent No. 2 in favour of respondent No. 1. The subsequeat agreement and an endorsement thereon records the payment. of a total sum of Rs. 29,000. 00 by respondent No. 1 and her husband to respondent No. 2. According to the terms and conditions of the subsequent agreement the parties were required to complete the transactions by December 31, 1979. It is. also relevant to mention that the subsequent agreememt also resites that the house in question was subject matter of a mortage in favour of one Smt. Satya Wanti, wife of Sbri Ram Lal, and respondent No. 1 had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000. 00 in cash to respondent No. 2 for redemption of the mortagage. Respondent No. 2 got the property redeemed by payment of a sum of Rl. 10,000 to the mortgagee after having received the same from respondent No. 1.
( 4 ) AFTER redemption of the property the title deed of the house as also "redeemed mortgage deed" was handed over to respondent No. 1 by respondent No. 2. According to respondent No. 1 shr paid sum ofrs. 6000. 00 over and above Rs. 29,000. 00 , mentioned in the subsequent agreement . Despite the fact that respondent No. 2 bad clearly stipulated in the various agreements bad referred heretobefore to obtain written permission to sell the house from the Competent autority at his own cost, and to execute a regular sale deed in favour of respondent No. 1, he failed to fulfil hii part of the obligation. Consequently resipondent No. 1 gave A notice dated October 19, 1982 through her Advocate respondent No. 2 for execution of the iale deed. Respondent No. 2, however, remained unmoved by this notice. It seems that notice
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
