( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned District Judge dismissing the appeal of the appellant against the order of the Second Additional Sub-Judge Rahpar in Execution Application No. 41 of 1956 holding that the execution application filed by the respondent was maintainable and should proceed according to law. The appellant who was the creditor of the respondent-debtor obtained an award in his favour under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act on 16th February 1955. The award provided that on payment of the amount awarded the appel- lant should deliver possession of the mortgaged field to the respondent- debtor The respondent paid the amount and demanded possession of the field and then applied in execution of the award to get possession of the mortgaged field. Thereupon the appellant raised various objections to the application in execution and the main ground of his objection was that award which was sought to be executed was not registered and that there- fore the execution application filed by the respondent was not tenable. This objection was upheld in appeal in which it was held that in absence of registration of the award the execution application filed by the respon- dent was not maintainable. The respondent then got the award registered and sought to prosecute his execution application. The appellant again raised objections which were rejected by the learned Second Additional Sub-Judge Rahpar by his order dated 20th February 1958. Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1958 filed by the appellant in the Court of the District Judge against the order of the first Court was dismissed by an order dated 16 June 1958. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that the present appeal is preferred by the original creditor.

( 2 ) MR. D U. Shah appearing on behalf of the appellant raised two points in support of his appeal:that as the award on which the execution application is brought was not registered within the time prescribed by sec. 23 of the Indian Registration Act the award was void and could not be executed. THAT the award contravened the provisions contained in the proviso to sub-clause (5) of sub-sec. (2) of sec. 32 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act and that therefore the Court passing the award had no jurisdiction to pass the award and that therefore such a void award could not be executed. 3 The argument of Mr. Shah for the appellant was that sec. 38 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act provided that every award made under that Act shall be registered and that sec. 46g of that Act also provided that except a provided in the Act the provisions of the Indian Registration Act 1908 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the registration of awards and that therefore the combined effect of secs. 38 and 46g when read with sec. 23 of the Indian Registration Act was that the award ought to have been registered within the time prescribed by sec. 23 of the Indian Registration Act i. e. within four months from the date of its execution. Sec. 38 (1) of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1947 before its amendment was as under: every award made under this Act shall on payment of the court-fee payable under sec. 44 be registered under the Indian Registration Act 1908 after the expiry of the period provided for an appeal if an appeal is allowed but no appeal is filed and after the disposal of the appeal if an appeal is filed. Thereafter sec. 38 (1) was substituted in 1948 by Act No. 70 of 1948 and now reads as under:every award made under this Act if it is in respect of debts charged on the properties of the debtor shall on payment of the court-fee payable under sec. 44 be registered in the manner provided in Chapter II-A. It would thus be noticeable that under the original section as it stood before 1948 awards under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act had to be registered like other documents under the Indian Registration Act because under the old sec. 38 there was