M A ADMANI Vs. A ADMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals under section 39 of the Arbitration Act (No. XX of 1940) (here in after referred to as 'the Act') are directed against the common order dated November 9,1976 passed by the District Judge, Pratabgarh (Camp Chitorgarh) in Civil Original Suit No. 11 of 1975. As both the appeals are directed against the same order and were heard together, I consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment.

(2.) AHMED Admani, who is appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 11 of 1977 and M.A. Admani who is appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1976 are real brothers. They were partners in the partnership firm M/s Mewar Bone Mills, Gosunda. The firm was dissolved by the aforesaid partners with mutual consent by Partnership Dissolution Deed Ex. A8 dated April 4, 1974. The dissolution of the aforesaid partnership took effect from April 1, 1974. Under clause 12 of Ex. A8, the matter was referred to the arbitrators. The arbitrators gave their award on June 3, 1975. Tile arbitrators gave notice under Section 14(1) of the Act to the parties on the same day. The Award was filed on July 9, 1975 vide application dated June 30, 1975 by the arbitrators Ahmed Hussain, Noor Mohamad and R.L. Shah. The learned District Judge, Pratabgarh (Camp Chiltorgarh) issued notices to the parties. It may be stated here that A. Admani will here in after be described as the petitioner and M.A. Admani as non -petitioner The date fixed for filing of the objections, if any, by the learned District Judge was October 11, 1975. A Admani filed his objections in writing on August 16, 1975. The objections were filed within the period of 30 days. The award was sought to be set aside on the ground of misconduct etc. A. Admani also filed objections on October 11, 1975 M.A. Admani filed his objections on August 18, 1975. He also filed reply to the objections of A. Admani. The learned District Judge framed issues in the light of the objections. I am only concerned with the issues no. 1,3 and 5 which are as under: (1) Whether the award requires registration; if not what is the effect: (2) Whether the award made by the arbitrators is within limitation ? (3) Whether the arbitrators were within their jurisdiction to pass the award as referred ? The learned District Judge by his order dated November 9, 1976 decided issue no. 1 in favour of the petitioner A. Admani and against non petitioner M.A. Admani. He held that (1) the Award requires registration and (2) that the Award made by the arbitrators is within limitation. The learned District Judge, in view of the finding arrived at by him on issue no. 1, rejected the Award and looking to the facts of the case, directed the parties to bear their own costs. M.A. Admani has filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 194 of 1976, inter alia, on the ground challenging the rejection of the Award on the ground that as it was not registered. A. Admani has filed the appeal praying that the decision on issues no. 3 and 5 may be set aside. In other words, he has challenged the order by which the Award was held to be within limitation.

(3.) I take up S.B. Civil Misc Appeal No. 194 of 1976 first. In support of the Appeal, Mr. M.C. Bhandari, learned Counsel for M.A. Admani has raised only one contention and that is, that the learned District Judge has committed a serious error of law when he held that the Award requires registration and so, the consequences of the non -registration will follow. He submitted that the Award does not require registration. Mr. Shishodia supported the finding of the learned District Judge on issue No. 1. The agreement dated August 24, 1973 has been marked as Ex. A.9. Paras 1 and 2 of Ex. A.9 are as follows: 1. That the pieces of Agricultural lands, animals, catties, Agricultural Equipments and accessories as per part 1 and part 2, as described in APPENDIX 'A' attached here with and at present registred at Government records in any of the above two brother's name and belonging and owned jointly by them till this day, Dot equal in area of measurement but mutually agreed as equal for the purpose of drawing lots to decide the separate ownership It was further agreed that the lots should be drawn for the said part 1 and part 2 and the results should be recorded in this agreement. 2. That the lots were drawn in the presence of above mentioned three witnesses and the results were recorded as under: (a) Part 1. Shri A. Admani was declared as per the result of the lot, as the owner of the portion of Agricultural lands, animals, catties, Agricultural equipments, and accessories as described in APPENDIX 'A' attached here with. (b) Part 2. Shri M.A. Admani was declared as per the result of the lot, as the owner of the portion of Agricultural lands, animals, catties, Agricultural equipmentes and acessories as described in APPENDIX 'A' attached here with. The agreement Ex. A9 is unregistered. The Partnership Dissolution Deed Ex. A.8 dated April 4, 1974 is also unregistered. In Ex. A8 M.A. Admani and A. Admani have been described as first party and second party respectively. Para 2 of Ex. A8 is as under: