VARISAIMUTHU CHETTIAR Vs. SAMIMUTHU CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition raises the question whether an award in arbitration proceedings without the intervention of the Court requires registration before it can be filed in Court. In O.S. No. 19 of 1927 of the Court of the District Munsif, Paramakudi, the respondents sued to recover possession of certain immovable property. During the pendency of the suit, the parties agreed to refer their differences to arbitration, and did so. When they came before the arbitrator it was agreed that he should also settle disputes between them relating to three other pieces of land. The arbitrator in due course gave his award which decided the questions of ownership of the four parcels of land. The award was then filed in Court with a view to its being made a decree. Objections were however raised by the respondents who took advantage of the fact that the award dealt with matters outside the scope of the suit. District Munsif decided that the award could be made a decree of the Court, but only so far as it affected the piece of property in suit. He refused to recognize its validity so far as the other three parcels of land were concerned. This decision was upheld by this Court in an application for revision. The petitioners then at tempted to file the award in Court under the provisions of Clause 20 of Schedule 2, Civil P.C. The respondents objected on the ground that the award had not been registered is accordance with the provisions of Section 17, Registration Act. The District Munsif upheld the objection, and refused to file it. An appeal followed to the Subordinate Judge, Ramnad, but was dismissed. This Court is now asked to exercise its powers under Section 115, Civil P.C., and to direct the District Munsif to file the award.

(2.) The only question for consideration is whether the award is a document within the purview of Section 17, Registration Act. Sub-section (1) sets out what documents shall be registered and they include non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property. Sub-section (2) gives a list of instruments which do not require registration. Clause (vi) of this sub-section exempts any decree or order of a Court except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject matter of the suit or proceeding. Before the passing of the Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, this clause also excepted awards, but the words "and any award" which appeared in the Clause were deleted by that Act. Although the reference to awards has been deleted from the Clause, it is argued by the learned advocate for the petitioners that an award of the nature of the one in suit does not come within the purview of Sub-section (1).

(3.) The Sub-section says that a non testamentary document which "declares" any right, title or interest in immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards does require registration and; the question resolves itself into whether the award does "declare" a right of this nature. The word "declare" has been the subject of much legal argument in the Courts of this country, but it has now been defined by the Privy Council. In the case in Bageshwari Charn Singh V/s. Jagarnath Kuari their Lordships accepted the definition, given by West J. in Sakharam Krishnaji V/s. Madan Krishnaji (1880) 5 Ben 232. West J. pointed out that the word declare implies a declaration of will, not a mere statement of fact," and went on to say: A deed of partition, which causes a change of legal relation to the property divided amongst all the parties to it, is a declaration in the intended sense; but a letter containing an admission, direct or inferential, that a partition once took place, does not "declare" a right within the meaning of the section.