Ram Lal vs Lachhman Dass and Others

J.V. Gupta, J.—This is an unfortunate dispute between the two brothers which is pending since the year 1974, The parties got time for compromise in this Court but it could not mature.

Both the parties appointed one Ajit Singh as arbitrator on 7.3.1974 for giving award in the matter of dispute between them. The arbitrator gave his award on 22.5.1974 and moved an application dated 9.9.1974 in Court for making the award the rule of the Court. In the reply filed to the said application, Lachhman Dass Respondent took an objection to the effect that he had informed well the arbitrator through registered notices and telegraphic notice that he had no faith in the said arbitrator and thus, repudiated its authority to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. It was also stated therein that the award was lop sided, perverse and totally unjust. He also pleaded that the sole arbitrator had acted in a partisan manner. In the reply filed on behalf of the Petitioner -Ram Lal, these allegations were denied The trial Court after framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that Lachhman Dass had failed to prove that he had repudiated the authority of the arbitrator to enter upon the arbitration through registered notices or otherwise. It was further found that the objection petition has no force and the award was liable to be made the rule of the Court. Consequently, vide order dated 28.7.1977, the objections filed on behalf of Lachhman Dass were dismissed and the award was made the rule of the Court. In appeal, before the learned Additional District Judge, it was contended that the award is on unstamped paper and as such it could not be made the rule of the Court. Though no such objection was taken in the trial Court but the learned Additional District Judge allowed the same being a legal point and came to the conclusion that "I am of the view that the mere fact that in the trial Court exhibit has been put on the award, it cannot be held that it has been properly stamped. As the award is unstamped, so it cannot be made a rule of the Court." The next contention raised in the appeal was that the award was unregistered, so also it could not be made a rule of the Court as it affects immovable poverty of more than Rs. 100/-. Admittedly, this objection was also not taken before the trial Court but the learned Additional District Judge allowed the same to be raised in appeal for the first time and came to the conclusion that ''but in the instance case, the award has not stated existing facts but has declared by its own force, interests of Respondent No. 2 in the agricultural land and as such it relates to immovable property and required registration " As regards the merits, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court but on two said legal points, he accepted the objection petition filed by Lachman Dass and the application for making the award the rule of the Court was dismissed Dissatisfied with the same, Ram Lal Petitioner has filed this petition in this Court.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that necessary stamp worth Rs 112.50 paise was purchased on 8.8.1974 before the award was filed in Court on 9.9.1974 That being so, it could not be argued successfully that the award was unstamped. Moreover, argued the learned Counsel, no such objection was taken by the Respondent in the trial Court and, therefore, he could not be allowed to take this technical objection to defeat the claim of the Petitioner in appeal. In support of this contention, he referred to The Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Pradip Trading Co. Vs. The State of Bihar, Javer Chand and Others Vs. Pukhraj Surana, and Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. M/S Dilip Construction Co AIR 1969 S.C. 1238.

As regards the question of registration, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no registration of the award was required because it does not create any right as such. It only decides the existing right between the parties and, therefore, this finding was wrong and illegal In any case, no such objection was raised before the trial Court and, therefore, it could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal.

On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon Rikhabdas Vs. Ballabhdas and Others, and argued that on the basis of the said judgment, the appellate Court rightly came to the conclusion that the award being unstamped could not be made a rule of the Court. According to the learned Counsel, there was no error of jurisdiction which could justify the interference in revision petition.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the case-law cited at the bar. It was held in Hindustan Steel Ltd.''s case (supra) that the Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to secure revenue for the State on certain classes of instruments. It is not enacted to arm a litigant with a weapon of technicality to meet the case of his opponents. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived in the interest of the revenue Once that object is secured according to law, the party stacking his claim on the instrument will not be defeated on the ground of the initial defect in the instrument. In the present case, as observed earlier, the necessary stamp of Rs. 112.50 paise was purchased on 8.8.1974 before the award was filed in Court. The mere fact that the award was not written on the stamp paper itself was of no consequence in view of the said Supreme Court judgment. Moreover, it was held in Mattapalli Chelamayya? case (supra) that even if the original award is not engrossed on stamp paper but a true copy of it is engrossed on the stamp paper, the same was admissible in evidence. Section 36 of the Indian Stamp Act further makes it clear that when an instrument has been admitted in evidence, such admission shall not, except as provided in Section 61, be called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the ground that the instrument has not been duly stamped. In view of these authorities, there was no occasion for the lower appellate Court to allow this point to be raised for the first time in appeal. That Court has thus illegally and with material irregularities exercised its jurisdiction. As regards registration, it was held by the Supreme Court in Mattapalli Chelamayya''s case (supra) that where one transaction creates an independent personal obligation to pay a certain sum of money and the other transaction merely strengthens the first transaction by adding a right to proceed against the charged property, the second transaction with regard to the charge being a severable transaction can be validly ignored and the award to the extent it declares the personal obligation to pay is admissible in evidence, the transaction not being required to be compulsorily registered Moreover, as required the present award, it is quite evident that it does not create any right as such. It only admits the existing rights between the parties and hence, it did not require any registration. The view taken by the lower appellate Court in this behalf was wholly wrong and illegal. It has been wrongly observed that a right was created in favour of Ram Lal in the land where he was declared owner. It was a dispute between two brothers. Both of them claimed their ownership and, thus, had their pre existing rights. The award made it clear only that the ownership will vest in one of the brothers i.e. Ram Lal.

As a result of the above discussion, this petition succeeds. The judgment of the lower appellate Court is set aside and that of the trial Court dismissing the objections filed by Lachhman Dass and making the award the rule of the Court is restored, with no order as to costs.