WALI MOHAMMAD Vs. PANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these applications in revision arise out of the same suit and are directed against a common order dated the 16th December. 1957. The application No. 2 of 1958 is by the plaintiffs while the other, namely, one bearing No. 280 of 1958, is by the defendants.

(2.) THE suit giving rise to these petitions is one for partition, both of movable and immovable properties which are at present said to be jointly owned and possessed by the members of a common family governed under the Muhammadan Law. THE facts of this case, to a large extent, barring a few here and there are admitted and the controversy at present before me is exclusively confined to one point only which the court below has at present disposed of at the instance of the defendants as a preliminary issue in the case.

(3.) NOW, in my opinion, so far as the question of registration of an award in such a case is concerned, that as now accepted by a Full Bench of this Court in Sheonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand, 1958 Pat LR 39: (AIR 1958 Pat 252), is not at all compulsory; and, therefore, instead of going into the authorities cited at the Bar for and against it I should better rest the matter here on the decision given in that Full Bench decision which has noticed practically all the important authorities on the point. Therein Sinha, J. (as he then was) with whom his other learned colleagues agree, has finally concluded the discussion on this point, in these words: