Six brothers, S.V.S. Sivalinga Nadar, S.V. Harikrishnan, S.V. Chandrapandian, S.V. Kasilingam, S.V. Ramachandran and S.V. Natesan, who were carrying on business in partnership together with other partners, under several partnership names and holding shares and managing a public limited company, namely, Madras Vanaspati Limited, Villupuram, agreed to refer their disputes to three Arbitrators, namely, Shri B.B. Naidu, Sri K.R. Ramamani and Sri R. Seetharaman.

2. In the reference dated 8.10.1981, they stated as follows:

We are carrying on business in partnership together with other partners under several partnership names. We are also holding shares and Managing the Public Limited., Company, namely. The Madras Vanaspati Ltd., at Villupuram. Disputes have arisen among us with respect to the several business concerns, immovable and movable properties standing in our names as well as other relatives.

We are hereby referring all our disputes, the details of which would be given by us shortly to you, namely, Sri B.B. Naidu, Sri K.R. Ramamani and Sri Seetharaman.

We agree to abide by your award as to our disputes.”

3. The Arbitrators proceeded with the arbitration enquiry, received statements and finally delivered the Award on 31.1.1983. This, however, was found containing several grave errors. The Arbitrators withdrew the Award and continued further proceedings. The arbitration proceedings, however, were not free of objections and litigations were brought to the court, even during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Yet eventually, the Arbitrators delivered the Award on 9.7.1984.

4. S.V. Chandrapandian and three others filed a petition under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act for a direction to the Arbitrators to file the Award in court and also filed Application No. 3505 of 1984 for passing a decree in terms of the Award. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar filed separate petition, O.P. No. 234 of 1984 for a direction to the Arbitrators to file the Award. He filed O.P. No. 247 of 1984 to set aside the Arbitration Award dated 9.7.1984. Several other petitions were also filed in the proceedings on the Original Side.

5. However, by a judgment dated 17.11.1988, O.P. No. 230 of 1984 and Application No. 3505 of 1984 have been allowed and a decree has been passed in terms of the Award dated 9.7.1984.

6. Besides the contentions on the merits of the Award, for which a detailed reference to the facts in issue may be necessary, the appellants in O.S.A. No. 191 of 1988 and O.S.A. No. 16 of 1989, in their objections before the trial court, as well as before us, have raised a contention as to the maintainability of the proceedings under S. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act and since the contention relates to the question of jurisdiction, we would first deal with it.

7. S. 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 provides as follows:

“17(1). The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, or this Act came or comes into force, namely:—

(a) instruments of gift of immoveable property;

(b) other non-testamentary instruments, which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immoveable property;

(c) non-testamentary instrument which acknowledge the receipt of payment of any consideration on account of the creation declaration, assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right, title or interest; and

(d) leases of immovable property from year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or reserving a yearly rent;

Provided that the State Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the operation of this sub-