MATHUNNI MATHEW Vs. MATHUNNI CHANDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counter petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 2 of 1951 on the file of the Kottayam District Court is the revision petitioner. He is the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 3 of 1951. The former petition is by the arbitrator under S.14 of the Arbitration Act for filing the award. The latter petition is one filed under S.33 of the Act challenging the validity of the award. In the course of the enquiry, a preliminary objection was raised by the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No. 3 of 1951 that the award was void and unenforceable by reason of the fact that it was not registered under the Registration Act. This objection was overruled by the court below by its order dated 20.2.1954. The revision petition is from that order.

(2.) The revision petitioner and the first counter petitioner in this court are brothers. Their father executed a settlement deed in respect of his properties in favour of his elder son, the revision petitioner. The younger son took objection to this; and himself and his children resorted to Satyagraha in the house in which his father and brother were living. As a result of this the elder brother agreed to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Ext. B is the agreement of reference. The second counter petitioner in this Court was the arbitrator. The award given by the arbitrator is Ext. A. The operative portion of the award is to the effect that the elder brother should execute a registered document conveying a portion of the properties covered by the settlement deed in favour of the younger brother (1st counter petitioner in this Court) free of all liabilities. The exact wording of the award is as follows: (1) That the petitioner shall execute a registered document conveying (the property is described here) in favour of the counter petitioner free of all the liabilities imposed by the settlement deed dated 1st April 1950 (in view of the lion share given to the petitioner by this award) whereby the counter petitioner will be entitled to whatever rights in those properties the petitioner gets under the document dated 1st April 1950. The second clause is as follows: (2) That the petitioner shall execute the above said document within fifteen days at his cost from the date of this award failing which the counter petitioner is entitled to get a decree as per this award and execute the same. The third clause reads: (3) All other properties entered in the document of 1st April 1950 other than those set apart for the counter petitioner shall go to the petitioner as he is entitled to the same.

(3.) The revision petitioner's contention is that the award comes within S.17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and is, therefore, compulsorily registrable; while the counter petitioner's case is that it comes within the exception contained in S.17(2)(v) of the Act. S.17(1)(b) reads: