RAM LAL Vs. LACHHMAN DASS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unfortunate dispute between the two brothers which is pending since the year 1974, The parties got time for compromise in this Court but it could not mature.

(2.) BOTH the parties appointed one Ajit Singh as arbitrator on 7.3.1974 for giving award in the matter of dispute between them. The arbitrator gave his award on 22.5.1974 and moved an application dated 9.9.1974 in Court for making the award the rule of the Court. In the reply filed to the said application, Lachhman Dass Respondent took an objection to the effect that he had informed well the arbitrator through registered notices and telegraphic notice that he had no faith in the said arbitrator and thus, repudiated its authority to proceed with the arbitration proceedings. It was also stated therein that the award was lop sided, perverse and totally unjust. He also pleaded that the sole arbitrator had acted in a partisan manner. In the reply filed on behalf of the Petitioner -Ram Lal, these allegations were denied The trial Court after framing issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence, came to the conclusion that Lachhman Dass had failed to prove that he had repudiated the authority of the arbitrator to enter upon the arbitration through registered notices or otherwise. It was further found that the objection petition has no force and the award was liable to be made the rule of the Court. Consequently, vide order dated 28.7.1977, the objections filed on behalf of Lachhman Dass were dismissed and the award was made the rule of the Court. In appeal, before the learned Additional District Judge, it was contended that the award is on unstamped paper and as such it could not be made the rule of the Court. Though no such objection was taken in the trial Court but the learned Additional District Judge allowed the same being a legal point and came to the conclusion that "I am of the view that the mere fact that in the trial Court exhibit has been put on the award, it cannot be held that it has been properly stamped. As the award is unstamped, so it cannot be made a rule of the Court." The next contention raised in the appeal was that the award was unregistered, so also it could not be made a rule of the Court as it affects immovable poverty of more than Rs. 100/ -. Admittedly, this objection was also not taken before the trial Court but the learned Additional District Judge allowed the same to be raised in appeal for the first time and came to the conclusion that 'but in the instance case, the award has not stated existing facts but has declared by its own force, interests of Respondent No. 2 in the agricultural land and as such it relates to immovable property and required registration " As regards the merits, the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court but on two said legal points, he accepted the objection petition filed by Lachman Dass and the application for making the award the rule of the Court was dismissed Dissatisfied with the same, Ram Lal Petitioner has filed this petition in this Court.

(3.) AS regards the question of registration, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that no registration of the award was required because it does not create any right as such. It only decides the existing right between the parties and, therefore, this finding was wrong and illegal In any case, no such objection was raised before the trial Court and, therefore, it could not be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal.