MOOLCHAND Vs. MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS reference has been made by one of us (Newaskar J.) for resolving the conflict between the decisions in Lakhmichand v. Biharial, AIR, 1943 Nag 165 : ILR (1943) Nag 293 and Uttamchand Motilalji v. Wasudeo Deorao, AIR 1946 Nag 311 : ilr (1946) Nag 583.

(2.) THE material facts are that on the basis of an unregistered award a money decree for Rs. 900/- creating a charge on a house belonging to the respondent was passed in favour of the appellants. In execution proceedings of that decree, the house was sold and purchased by the decree-holders themselves. Thereupon, the respondent objected, to the sale on the ground that the decree itself was a nullity inasmush as the award had not been registered as required by Section 17 (1) (b) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. This objection was) overruled by the executing Court. It, however, prevailed in appeal which the judgment-debtor) filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Dhar. The learned Additional District judge, following the decision in AIR 1946 Nag 311 : ILR (1946) Nag 583 (supra)held that the decree was a nullity and consequently the sale was also nullity.

(3.) THE decree-holders then filed a second appeal in this Court. During the course of the) hearing of the second appeal, the question arose as to which of the two decisions of the Nagpur High, Court the learned Single Judge had to follow in deciding the question whether the decree was or was not a nullity as the award had not been registered. The learned Single Judge, therefore, following the observations of the Supreme Court in Jaisri v. Rajdawan, AIR 1962 SC 83, adopted the course, of referring the matter to a Full Bench without taking upon himself the responsibility of deciding whether he should follow one Division Bench decision or the other.