Danlam Rangiah vs Baftday Narsimlu

Jagan Mohan Reddy, J.—This is a revision petition against an order of the Appellate Court, setting aside the order of the Trial Court and allowing an application to file an award. The point that arises in this. petition is whether the registration of the award is proper or not. It appears from the record that the arbitrators have written out an award which recited that the same was read out to the parties and was signed by them in token of their acceptance of the award. Subsequently, however, this very award was rewritten on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/- and presented for registration on 1-9-1950, the original award being dated 1-8-1950.

Now it is contended on behalf of the revision Petitioner that the award is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The award was given in a claim against the Petitioner for a certain amount on the basis of accounts. According to the award, a sum of Rs. 3,200/- was found due to the opposite party by the Petitioner and as a security for the payment of this money, the award created a charge on a house belonging to the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner is that as this award affects immovable property the the value of over Rs. 100/-, it is compulsorily registrable u/s 10 of the Hyderabad Registration Act, corresponding to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. It is contended that registering a copy of the award is not sufficient, as once the arbitrators had given the award, they became ''functus officio''. Any further writing by them is without jurisdiction. In support of this contention the Petitioner''s advocate relies on � Chhati Lal Vs. Ram Chariter Sahu and Others, .

From a perusal of that case, it appears that the Plaintiff filed an award which was unregistered. It was then discovered that since it affected immovable property of. the value of over Rs. 100/- and required to be registered, the Court was requested to return the award for being presented for registration which the Court refused. Whereupon the arbitrators rewrote the award making the previous award part of it and had the same registered. It was this award which was again filed and with respect to which objection was taken. The main ground of the decision in the above case was not that the original award was rewritten, but it was not presented for registration within the time allowed by Section 23, Registration Act, viz., within four months from the date of the execution. The Respondent in order to get over this objection had contended that the registered award should be treated as an award made on a new submission by the parties, but this contention was rejected on the ground that the arbitrators had become functus officio'' and had no jurisdiction whatever to give a fresh award. During the course of the judgment it was observed that if the Respondents wished to avoid the argument that the arbitrator was ''functus officio'' they are also bound to say that it was merely the original award rewritten by the arbitrators. If it is treated as such, then the award comes within the mischief of Section 23 of the Act of Registration. The ratio of the above decision, in my view, is not that the copying out of the award on a stamp paper for purposes of registration was invalid, but the presentation of the rewritten award was outside the period prescribed by Section 23 of the Registration Act; as such cannot be deemed to have been registered. In this case, the arbitrators gave no new award but only engrossed the original award and had the same registered affixing the original award with it, for registration within the time prescribed by Section 17 of the Hyderabad Registration Act (corresponding to Section 23 of the Indian Registration Act) which governs this case.

In the case of � Parshottam Das v. Kekhushru 35 Bom LR 1101, the arbitrators heard the parties, wrote out their award on a rough paper which was signed by all the arbitrators after which it was handed over to one of the arbitrators for getting it engrossed on a stamp paper. Later, however, at the instance of one of the parties and with the consent of the other, four of the arbitrators reopened the award and made a fresh award which was duly written on a stamp paper and signed. The fifth arbitrator who was out of station affixed his signature to the new award after his return. In this case it was held that when once an award was made, dated and signed by all the arbitrators, it was not open to them to substitute another award for it.

In Kula Nagabushanam v. Kula Sesha-chalam 1 Mad HCR 178, where in a suit to recover a sum of money on award five arbitrators came to a decision and made, dated and signed a rough draft of the award and the Defendant then withdrew from the submission after which a fair copy was made bearing the same date as that of the rough draft, put signed by only four of the arbitrators, it was held that the award was complete on the date of the rough draft and that its validity was not affected by the subsequent occurrences. Once the arbitrators had not only given and published their award, but obtained the consent of the parties to the award and took their signatures in token of their having accepted the award, the rewriting of the same on a stamp paper would not affect the validity of the original award. The question here is whether the rewriting of it on a stamp paper for purposes of its presentation for registration can be deemed to be an act in furtherance of making the award binding and legal or can be considered to be only a ministerial act of the arbitrators. From the endorsement on the registered award it is apparent that both the original as well as the copy on the stamp paper were filed for registration within the time prescribed u/s 17 of the Hyderabad Registration Act. When once the Registrar accepted the original award as having been filed with a copy of the same on the stamp paper, his endorsement on the stamped copy that the document as per the translation in Urdu has been registered, in my view, cannot in any way affect the original award, nor make the award inadmissible in evidence for want of registration.

In the result the revision is disallowed and the judgment of the appellate Court is confirmed, and the lower Court''s order holding the award inadmissible is set aside and it is directed to dispose of the case according to law. Having regard to the special circumstances of the ease no order is made as to costs.

Naik, C.J.

I agree.