(1.) THIS is a revision petition against an order of the Appellate Court, setting aside the order of the Trial Court and allowing an application to file an award. The point that arises in this. petition is whether the registration of the award is proper or not. It appears from the record that the arbitrators have written out an award which recited that the same was read out to the parties and was signed by them in token of their acceptance of the award. Subsequently, however, this very award was rewritten on a stamp paper of Rs. 20/ - and presented for registration on 1 -9 -1950, the original award being dated 1 -8 -1950.
(2.) NOW it is contended on behalf of the revision Petitioner that the award is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The award was given in a claim against the Petitioner for a certain amount on the basis of accounts. According to the award, a sum of Rs. 3,200/ - was found due to the opposite party by the Petitioner and as a security for the payment of this money, the award created a charge on a house belonging to the Petitioner. The contention of the Petitioner is that as this award affects immovable property the the value of over Rs. 100/ -, it is compulsorily registrable under Section 10 of the Hyderabad Registration Act, corresponding to Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. It is contended that registering a copy of the award is not sufficient, as once the arbitrators had given the award, they became 'functus officio'. Any further writing by them is without jurisdiction. In support of this contention the Petitioner's advocate relies on - Chhati Lal v. Ram Chariter : AIR 1941 Pat 215.
(3.) IN the case of - Parshottam Das v. Kekhushru, 35 Bom LR 1101, the arbitrators heard the parties, wrote out their award on a rough paper which was signed by all the arbitrators after which it was handed over to one of the arbitrators for getting it engrossed on a stamp paper. Later, however, at the instance of one of the parties and with the consent of the other, four of the arbitrators reopened the award and made a fresh award which was duly written on a stamp paper and signed. The fifth arbitrator who was out of station affixed his signature to the new award after his return. In this case it was held that when once an award was made, dated and signed by all the arbitrators, it was not open to them to substitute another award for it.