MOOLCHAND Vs. MANGILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point raised in this second appeal which arises out of an execution proceedings is whether a decree passed on an award creating charge upon an immovable property is a nullity in case the award is not registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act.

(2.) The question arose when the decree-holders in such a case sought to execute the decree based on the unregistered award and got the house of the judgment-debtor sold in execution and purchased it themselves. The judgment- debtor objected to the sale on the ground that the decree was a nullity as the award had not been registered. The executing Court overruled that contention and confirmed the auction sale. The judgment-debtor thereupon appealed to the learned Additional District Judge, Dhar, before whom two Division Bench decisions of the Nagpur High Court reported in Lakhmichand v. Biharilal(T943 NLJ 154=AIR 1943 Nag. 165=ILR 1943 Nag. 293) and Uttamchand Motilalji v. Wasudeo Deorao(1946 NLJ 317=AIR 1946 Nag. 311=ILR 1946 Nag. 583), were cited, considered that the latter of the two decisions ought to prevail, followed that decision and held that the decree was a nullity and consequently the sale. He consequently quashed the entire execution proceedings and dismissed the execution petition.

(3.) In this second appeal Mr. Sanghi for the appellants relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Jaisri v. Rajdewan(AIR 1962 S.C. 83), where their Lordships laid down the principle to be followed in case of conflict among decisions of Division Benches of the High Court.