Skip to main content

Registration of award must when right, title and interest in immovable property exceeding value of Rs. 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH), Writ Petition No. 4571/2016, Ramchandra vs Kiran, original dispute relating to an immovable property was referred to an arbitrator and the Arbitrator included various properties in which the parties had interest and passed his award on 02.12.2009. On the plaintiff trying to execute the award, the respondent raised objection that the award needs to be registered as the subject matter of the award related to immovable properties worth more than Rs. 100/-. 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.

On appeal, the High Court decided that as per the provisions of Section 17(1)(b) of the said Act, it is clear that in any testamentary document purporting to create or declare any right, title or interest in any immovable property exceeding value of Rs. 100/- is compulsory registrable. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 support the aforesaid proposition. On reading of the entire award, it becomes clear that ownership rights in favour of the parties has been created with regard to some of the properties and they have been called upon to relinquish their rights with regard to other properties. It is therefore evident that since the right, title and interest was being created in immovable property exceeding the value of Rs. 100/-, the award was required to be duly registered. In absence of such registration, the award cannot be executed. Reference in this regard can be made to the decision in Sita Ram Bhama Vs. Ramvatar Bhama.



Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more