The court clarified the legal principles regarding the validity of a decree embodied in an award and the claim of a lien under Mahomederi Law.

1. The decision appealed against gives plaintiff a charge for two lakhs of rupees on the properties purchased by 3rd defendant, appellant, at a sale held in execution of 1st defendants money decree against 2nd defendant, after the dismissal of plaintiffs claim.

2. The nature and extent of Plaintiffs right over the properties depends on the effect of a series of transactions originating in the liability of the 1st defendant, her husband, for mahar settled at 22,500 when their marriage took place in 1884. This liability is refered to in Exs. E and F and is not disputed before us, although those documents are not registered and may not effect the security for its satisfaction, to which they refer. This attempt to provide security Was due to 2nd defendant becoming indebted ; and in 1909 he further gave Ex. A, undertaking (I) to repay to Plaintiff a loan taken for the discharge of his debts, within five years from the income of the properties, which had fallen to him as his share under the partition, Ex. G, and (2) to sell her at the end of five years those properties for two lakhs of the mahar debt or to give her possession thereof, apparently as security for that sum. This document also was unregistered and therefore was valid only as an agreement to sell. On this, the loan was, as Exs. H series and K show advanced ; but nothing was done in pursuance of the provision for sale or delivery and on 11th December 1914 the properties were attached by 1st defendant. 2nd defendant however in defiance of his obligations under Ex. A and the attachment gave a lease for three years, Ex, B, for an advanced rent of Rs. 7,500 to P.W. 1 arid another ; and this was followed within two months by a reference on the part of plaintiff and 2nd defendant to arbitrators of the differences, which according to the muchilika, Ex. J, had arisen between them, the arbitration ending in an award, Ex, J-1 which was made a decree of Court, Ex. J-3. It is with the effect of Ex. J-3 that we are concerned, its terms being that (1) 2nd defendant should within one month execute a sale-deed conveying to plaintiff the properties referred to in Ex. A or that in case of his default the court should execute one on his behalf, (2) he should borrow Rs. 7,500 from plaintiff, repay the lessee under Ex B the amount received from him and then put plaintiff in possession of the properties which, until he did so, should be charged with two lakhs of rupees for her benefit and (3) he should repay the plaintiff within two years another amount already borrowed on a pro-note.

3. In pursuance of this the lease Ex. B was terminated and plaintiff alleges that she was put in possession of the properties, her claim was made and dismissed, and 3rd defendant purchased at the sale, which followed. In her suit plaintiff asked generally for a decree vacating the order on her claim and". declaring that the properties were not liable to be sold. But the lower court refused the latter relief on the ground that she had not perfected her right by obtaining a sale-deed; and it is not suggested on her behalf that this refusal was wrong. The question is only whether the lower court was entitled to grant her a charge for two lakhs on the property.

4. The charge it allowed was not created by Ex. A. which was unregistered, and therefore it must be supported, if at all as created by Ex. J-3. That decree was however passed after the attachment of the property and it is argued with reference to Section 64, Civil Procedure Code, that, as the award, which it embodied, resulted from the consent of plaintiff and 2nd defendant to a reference to arbitration, it must "be Regarded as a private transfer of the property attached or, consistently with plaintiffs case, of an interesting it and was void against 3rd defendants claim, which is enforceable under the attachment. It is not necessary to consider whether a decree embodying an award can be so regarded, in case it is proved that the reference to arbitration