A.S. Chandurkar JUDGMENT
A.S. Chandurkar, J.
1. Dismissal of the execution proceedings seeking to execute an award passed by an Arbitrator on the ground that said award was unregistered is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs who had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the present petitioner seeking to protect their possession over the suit premises. The suit premises was a structure on the mezzanine floor wherein business was being conducted by the father of the plaintiff no. 2. The petitioner filed his written statement and opposed the suit as filed. During the pendency of the proceedings the dispute between the parties was referred to an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator passed his award on 02.12.2009. Various properties other than the suit property were included in the arbitration proceedings on the basis of which the award came to be passed. While the plaintiffs were held entitled for some of the properties, the defendant was also held entitled to have a right in other properties. On the basis of that award the petitioner filed execution proceedings seeking possession of the properties awarded to him. In those proceedings, the original plaintiffs filed an application below Exhibit 11 seeking dismissal of the execution proceedings on the ground that the award in question was not duly registered and as the subject matter of the award related to immovable properties worth more than Rs. 100/-, its registration was mandatory. This application was opposed by the petitioner and by the impugned order dated 27.10.2015, the learned Judge of the Executing Court dismissed the execution proceedings on the ground that the award was not registered.
3. Ms. Dipali Sapkal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Executing Court erred in dismissing the execution proceedings. It was not necessary to have the award registered in view of the fact that the same did not create any new rights in the parties and the rights already existing had been adjudicated upon. Placing reliance on the decisions in Sardar Singh Vs. Smt. Krishna Devi and another, MANU/SC/0102/1995 : AIR 1995 SC 491, N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by L.Rs. And another Vs. N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) and others, MANU/SC/0088/2003 : AIR 2003 SC 1524 and N. Khosla V. Rajlakshmi(dead) and ors. MANU/SC/1332/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 1249, it was submitted that the award in question was liable to be executed and it was not necessary to have the same registered.
4. On the other hand, Shri A.N. Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 supported the impugned order. According to him, the award resulted in creation of new rights in respect of certain properties and also relinquishment of existing rights in other properties. There was no question of adjudication of any preexisting rights on the basis of which registration of the award was not necessary. He referred to the award in question to indicate said aspect. He also referred to the provisions of Section 17(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 (for short, 'the said Act') in that regard. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in Satish Kumar and others Vs. Surinder Kumar and others MANU/SC/0264/1968 : AIR 1970 SC 833, Ratan Lal Sharma Vs. Purushottam Harit, MANU/SC/0003/1974 : AIR 1974 SC 1066, Lachhman Dass Vs. Ram Lal and another,