M PARASMULL CHARIDA Vs. MAHENDRA DADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Petition No. 205 of 1990 was filed by the three arbitrators u / S. 14 sub-cl. (2) of the Indian Arbitration Act to receive the award dated 10-1-1990, the copy of the arbitration agreement, dated 12th Sept. 1989 and the documents filed as per the Schedule attached to the said original petition and to order notice to the respondents. The respondents 1 to 3 are the sons of late L. Milapchand Dadha. The arbitrators were appointed under an agreement, dated 12th Sept, 1989 entered into between the respondents herein and in the dispute between them. The disputes arose between the respondents, who are the sons of late L. Milapchand Dadha, following the death of their father on 11/10/1976. The three arbitrators/ petitioners in ORIGINAL Petition No. 205 of 1990 were appointed to decide the disputes arose between the respondents. The arbitration proceedings commenced on 12th Sept. 1989 and concluded on 10/01/1990, when the award was pronounced. According to the petitioners, all the respondents were heard during the enquiry and a number of documents were filed by both the parties. The third respondent Mahipal Dadha (in O. P. No. 205 of 1990) filed a counter statement, dated 27/03/1991. In para 5 of the counter statement, the third respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the award in question relates to creation and extinguishment of interest in immovable property and hence should have been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act.

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2 have filed a separate counter-affidavit, dated 2/04/1991. THEy have denied that the award creates or extinguishes any interest in immovable property. According to them, the award in question does not create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish any right or interest in immovable property, and that therefore, the award does not require registration under the Indian Registration Act.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary for me to refer to certain facts. The respondents have entered into an agreement on 12-9-1989, referring the questions and matters referred to therein to the final determination of Mr. Parasmal Choradia, S. Mohanchand Dadha, M. Motichand Golechha. This agreement contains the points raised by Mahipal Dadha, the third respondent in O. P. No. 205 of 1990 and Mr. Mahendra Dadha and Mr. Maher Dadha. Point No. 5 raised by the third respondent concerns of matters concerning Dadha complex. This building bears Corporation Door No. 365, Mint Street, Old Door No. 133, which was received by late Milapchand Dadha, the father of the respondents in a family partition in the year 1941. The building was a H. U. F. property of late Milapchand Dadha. During his lifetime, late Milapchand Dadha decided to make his three sons, the respondents herein the owners of the property by giving them one third share by a partial partition. Accordingly, three deeds have been registered and the property now belongs to all the three having one third equal share. After evicting the tenants, the property has been reconstructed and 'Dadha complex' has been put up. The arbitrators in the award refer to the fact that they had gone through the account books relating to distribution of assets as per the directions of late Milapchand Dadha in his Will made on 1-1-1974 and they were convinced that the distribution was done in accordance with the directions of late Milapchand and this has been accepted by the parties. Therefore, it is clear that the arbitrators as of fact find that the distribution of assets took place in accordance with the directions of late Milapchand Dadha. IN other words, the arbitrators have not distributed the assets, but the parties herein have themselves distributed the assets with regard to the question raised by the third respondent relating to 'Dadha complex'. The arbitrators find as follows :-