M VENKATARATNAM Vs. M CHELAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been placed before us as a result of the view expressed by a Division Bench of this Court that it involves certain important questions of law which deserve consideration by a larger Bench. The question expressly mentioned in the order of reference to the Full Bench is:

(2.) THE salient facts leading up to this appeal may now be stated succinctly. THE two appellants and the two respondents before us constituted a Hindu joint family which owned considerable moveable and immovable properties. Differences arose between them and they considered it necessary to effect a partition of the joint properties. Consequently, on 20-5-1950, they executed an arbitration agreement, Ex. A-1 appointing V. Krishnaiah, B. Chinna Venkatarayudu and M. Ayyanna alias Venkataraju as arbitrators for partitioning the entire moveable and immoveable properties belonging to the joint family into four shares. Under this document, they also agreed to accept as final and binding the decision of the arbitrators. At the time of Ex. A-1, the second appellant, Venkataswamy, was a minor and was represented by his paternal uncle, the first respondent (Chalamaiah) as guardian. By October, 1954, the second appellant became a major and therefore he along with the first appellant and the two respondents executed Ex. A-2 dated 10-10-54. This document expressly stated that the immoveable properties belonging to the joint family had been partitioned by the arbitrators during the minority of the second appellant and that the second appellant accepted that partition. On 28-8-1955, the four members of the family executed Ex. A- 3 requesting the arbitrators

(3.) THE main contention raised by Mr. Narasaraju on behalf of the appellants is that an award made without the intervention of Court after the coming into force of the Arbitration Act (Act X of 1940) does not at all require to be registered under any circumstance because such an award has no force or effect whatsoever until it is made a decree of Court under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Ss. 31(2) and 32 of the Act. It is well to read these sections here: Section 31(2):