RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter called the “Act”) is preferred against the judgment/order dated 6th February, 1995 of the Additional District Judge dismissing the petition filed by the arbitrator/respondent no.1 herein under Section 14 and 17 of the Act for making the arbitration award dated 17th September, 1992 a rule of the Court. The said arbitration was between the appellants on the one hand and the respondent no.2 on the other hand. Neither of the parties preferred objections to the arbitral award before the Additional District Judge. The respondent no.2 has not opposed the present appeal also. Notwithstanding, there being no objection to making the award a rule of the court, the Additional District judge dismissed the petition inter alia on the ground that the arbitration award was contrary to law and also being required to be registered and being not registered could not be made a rule of the court. Aggrieved there-from the appellants have preferred this appeal.

2. As per the arbitration record, forming part of the record of the court of Additional District Judge summoned in this court, the appellants and the respondent no.2 entered into an arbitration agreement dated 8th September, 1992. It is recorded therein that disputes and differences had arisen between the appellants (described in the agreement as first party) on the one hand and the respondent no.2 (described in the agreement as second party) on the other hand regarding property no.43, Silver Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi (Khasra No.19/3, Khureji Khas), measuring 90’.x120’; that the parties had agreed to refer to said disputes and differences to the arbitration of the respondent no.1; that two questions framed in the agreement and referred to the arbitrator are as under:-

(i) Whether the first party is the exclusive and absolute owner of the property in dispute bearing no.43, Silver Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi-110051 (Khasra No.19/3, Khureji Khas), measuring 90’x 120’ better known and described in the annexed site plan in red colour, in lieu of the Oral Gift made on 1st June, 1990 by the Second Party.

(ii) Whether the second party, Peer Abdul Majid, can revoke or cancel the oral gift made on 1st June, 1990 in favour of the first party in respect of the aforesaid property shown in the site plan bearing

no.43 (Khasra No.19/3, Khureji Khas) measuring 90’x120’, situated at Chawla Park, Chander Nagar, Delhi-110 051.

3. The arbitration record further reveals that respondent no.1/arbitrator on 12th September, 1992 recorded the statements of appellants, one Mr. A.K. Arora, witness of the appellants and the respondent. In the said statements, parties admitted that the respondent no.2 was the owner of the property aforesaid; that the respondent no.2 on 1st June, 1990 made an oral gift of the said property in the presence of the aforesaid Mr. A.K. Arora and in favour of the appellants and also handed over the proprietary possession of the said property to the appellants; that the appellants, at the time of making of the statements, were in possession of the property. The only dispute was that the respondent no.2 wanted to cancel or revoke the said oral gift. While the respondent no.2 claimed to be entitled to so revoke and cancel the gift, the same being oral and wanted back the possession of the property and custody of the title documents with respect thereto, the appellants denied his entitlement to do so.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid statements of the parties and the witness aforesaid, the respondent no.1/arbitrator made an award holding that under the Mohammedan Law, the oral gift was permissible; that all the ingredients required to complete the gift had been satisfied making the gift valid and legal and hence the respondent no.2 could not revoke the gift for the reason of the same being oral. The arbitrator thus answered the first question referred to him by holding that the appellants are the