# ere was no v. binding decision between the parties that the claim - **Citation:** [1960] 2 S.C.R. 810 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1960 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1956 - **Bench:** Jafer Imam, J. L. Kapur, K. Subba Rao - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ere-was-no-v-binding-decision-between-the-parties-that-the-claim-1785 - **Pages:** 11 ## Headnote Arbitration-Award, Registration of-Power of court to extend time for filing-The Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940), s. 14(2)- Jndian Ncgistration Act, (XV I of 1908), ss. 17, 49-Indian Limitation Act, (J X of 1908), Art. 178-Jndian Succession Act, 1925 (XXXIX of 1925), s. 192. By means of a will the respondent's husband authorised her to adopt the appellant, and the will was duly registered after the death of the testator. The relevant portion of the will ran thus:- "Under this will, I am authorising the said Champalal Ishv,:ardas to execute the same. I have appointed him the executor of this will. Under the said will the said Champalal alone shall be the full O\vner of my entire rnovable and immoveable property and the executor of. the will after my • - - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 811 death if I adopt him during my lifetime or even if my wife r960 adopts him (after my death)." Champa/al The appellant applied for appointment of a curator under v. s. 192 of the Succession Act but subsequently the parties entered Mst. Samarath Bai into an agreement for arbitration in the matter. Three arbitrators were appointed and the time for making the award was extended by the Court on their application. The arbitration agreement stated that the arbitrators had to decide what should be the respective rights of the parties in the estate in case the respondent adopted the appellant. An award was made and filed in Court by the arbitrators to the effect that the respondent should adopt the appellant according to Hindu Law within four months failing which the appellant would be heir and executor of the entire property of the deceased and the respondent would be entitled to a maintenance of Rs. zoo per mensem. But if in spite of the respondent's readiness to adopt, the appellant refused to be adopted within four months, he would not have any right in the property nor would he be the executor. The award was at first unregistered and on being returned it was subsequently registered and refiled in Court. The attorney of two of the arbitrators furnished to the Sub-Registrar a list of the property covered by the award. The proceedings under the Succession Act and the Arbitration Act were then separated. The respondent made an application under s. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, and the appellant applied for setting aside the award. The Court passed a decree in terms of the award. The High Court on appeal by the appellant .upheld the award. On appeal by a certificate of the High Court the appellant contended that being an executor he could not refer the matter to arbitration,· that the award was not filed within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, that it was not registered according to law, that the First Additional Judge had no jurisdiction to extend time for making the award, that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct and the award was in excess of the power given to them and that even if the awarci"was proper and legal the respond'"nt having refused to adopt the appellant the decree should have been as provided by the award on the happening of tlile contingency and the Court passing the decree had no jurisdiction to take subsequent events into consideration. Held, that the filing of the award by the arbitrators after notice to the parties was not barred by limitation as Art. 178 of the Limitation Act applied to applications made by the parties and not to the filing of the award by the arbitrators. The award required registration but the filing of an un-· registered award under s. 49 of the Registration Act was not prohibited; what was prohibited was that it could not be taken into evidence so as to affect immoveable property falling under s. 17 of the Act. Champalal 812 SUPREME lJOURT REPORTS [1960(2)] The Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing the award and to extend time for filing it. v. By the will the appellant could not get the property of the Mst. Samarath Bai testator nor \Vas he constituted an executor ## Text 810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] r96o the competence of the arbitrators. The High Court ., Ai-·r , din appeal under the Letters Patent, did confirm the ""/S. opi arsna d , 'd h d b t th a?td sans. Ltd. or er, setting as1 e t e awar ; u ere was no v. binding decision between the parties that the claim The Union of Iudia described in Sch. B, that is, the claim for establishShah J. January 2I ment and contingency charges, was within the competence of the arbitrators in reference under cl. 20. It may be observed that according to the High Court of East Punjab in the Appeal No. 31 of 1953, under the Letters Patent, it was not necessary to express any opinion whether the claim in Sch. U was within the competence of the arbitrators, and the claims described in Sch.]) does not appear to have been agitated in the second arbitration proceeding. We, accordingly, agree with the view of the High .Court that the Award of the arbitrators was liable to be set aside because of an error apparent on the face of the award. In this view, the appeal fails and i~ dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed,. CHAMPALAL v. MST. SAMARATH BAI (JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.) Arbitration-Award, Registration of-Power of court to extend time for filing-The Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940), s. 14(2)- Jndian Ncgistration Act, (XV I of 1908), ss. 17, 49-Indian Limitation Act, (J X of 1908), Art. 178-Jndian Succession Act, 1925 (XXXIX of 1925), s. 192. By means of a will the respondent's husband authorised her to adopt the appellant, and the will was duly registered after the death of the testator. The relevant portion of the will ran thus:- "Under this will, I am authorising the said Champalal Ishv,:ardas to execute the same. I have appointed him the executor of this will. Under the said will the said Champalal alone shall be the full O\vner of my entire rnovable and immoveable property and the executor of. the will after my • - - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 811 death if I adopt him during my lifetime or even if my wife r960 adopts him (after my death)." Champa/al The appellant applied for appointment of a curator under v. s. 192 of the Succession Act but subsequently the parties entered Mst. Samarath Bai into an agreement for arbitration in the matter. Three arbitrators were appointed and the time for making the award was extended by the Court on their application. The arbitration agreement stated that the arbitrators had to decide what should be the respective rights of the parties in the estate in case the respondent adopted the appellant. An award was made and filed in Court by the arbitrators to the effect that the respondent should adopt the appellant according to Hindu Law within four months failing which the appellant would be heir and executor of the entire property of the deceased and the respondent would be entitled to a maintenance of Rs. zoo per mensem. But if in spite of the respondent's readiness to adopt, the appellant refused to be adopted within four months, he would not have any right in the property nor would he be the executor. The award was at first unregistered and on being returned it was subsequently registered and refiled in Court. The attorney of two of the arbitrators furnished to the Sub-Registrar a list of the property covered by the award. The proceedings under the Succession Act and the Arbitration Act were then separated. The respondent made an application under s. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, and the appellant applied for setting aside the award. The Court passed a decree in terms of the award. The High Court on appeal by the appellant .upheld the award. On appeal by a certificate of the High Court the appellant contended that being an executor he could not refer the matter to arbitration,· that the award was not filed within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act, that it was not registered according to law, that the First Additional Judge had no jurisdiction to extend time for making the award, that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct and the award was in excess of the power given to them and that even if the awarci"was proper and legal the respond'"nt having refused to adopt the appellant the decree should have been as provided by the award on the happening of tlile contingency and the Court passing the decree had no jurisdiction to take subsequent events into consideration. Held, that the filing of the award by the arbitrators after notice to the parties was not barred by limitation as Art. 178 of the Limitation Act applied to applications made by the parties and not to the filing of the award by the arbitrators. The award required registration but the filing of an un-· registered award under s. 49 of the Registration Act was not prohibited; what was prohibited was that it could not be taken into evidence so as to affect immoveable property falling under s. 17 of the Act. Champalal 812 SUPREME lJOURT REPORTS [1960(2)] The Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for filing the award and to extend time for filing it. v. By the will the appellant could not get the property of the Mst. Samarath Bai testator nor \Vas he constituted an executor except in the event of his being adopted and therefore he could enter into the arbitration agreement. Kapur]. The agreement for arbitration having specifically stated that the consequences of adoption or non-adoption \Vere to be decided by the arbitrators, they rightly laid down what was to happen if the adoption did not take place owing to the default of either party, imposing a time limit was implicit in the terms of the agreement and their award \Vas not in excess of the power given to them by the arbitration agreement. The award could not be treated as having perverted the line of succession by merely stating that if the adoption did not take place the respondent would receive l: share of the testator's property and it would form her stridhan. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 34 of 1956. Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 19, 1954 of the former Nagpur High Court, in Misc. Appeal No. 164 of 1949, arising out of the judgment and decree dated November 22, 1949, of the First Additional District Judge, Akola, in Civil Suit No. 12-A of 1948. 0. B. Agarwala and GanpaJ; Rai, for the appellant. S. K. Kapur and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent. 1960. January, 21. The Judgment·of the Court was delivered by KAPUR J.-This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the Nagpur High Court and arises out of proceedings under the Indian Arbitration Act. The appellant in this case is Champalal and the respondent is Samarath Bai, the widow of Lal Chand. The parties who are Jains belong to Balapur in the district of Akola in the previous State of Madhya Pradesh. The relationship of the parties is shown by the following pedigree table : · - - r ' - < - -· - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 813 I Nanak Chand I Bulakhidas= Jivanbai I Babibai= Rasiklal Phool Chand I I I Khushal Chand Sundarlal I Lalchand= Samarathbai I I Ishwardas · I Champalal I Sakarchand I Ratanbai= Vijay Kumar I Bag la! I I I Vinaychand I Deolal I I I I I Digamber Das I Vimalchand On September 14, 1944, Lal Chand made a will by which he authorized his wife Samarath Bai to adopt Champalal and made certain disposition of his property. Lal Chand died on September 26, 1944. On October 20, 1944, the appellant made an application under s. 192 of the Succession Act to the First Additional District Judge of Akola for the appointment of a Curator. This was Misc. J udl. No. 3 of 1944. Notices were issued to the respondent, Samarath Bai and her daughters. The will was registered on December 2!J, 1944. On January 10, 1945, an arbitration agreement was entered into between the appellant and the respondent and on January 16, 1945, both parties applied for stay of proceedings in the case (Misc. Judi. No. 3of1944) and the case was adjourned to March 28, 1945, and then was adjourned to June 18, 1945. On that date the arbitrators made an application to the First Additional District Judge for extension of time for four months for making the award. This application was opposed by the appellant but the court gave three months' time on July 26, 1946. The award was made on October 18, 1946. On October 21, it was filed by the arbitrators in the court of the First Additiona.l Di,;trict Judge who on October 30, gave to the parties ten days' time for objections, On November 15~ Champa I al v. Mst. Samarath /la1 Kapu1 J. 814 SUPREME COURT.REPORTS [1960(2)) '96° 1946, the appellant filed objections to the award and on January 31, 1947, the respondent applied for a Champalal f v. judgment in terms o the ·award and for a decree . • VI st. Samaratk Bai The award was unregistered and therefore at the request of the respondent it was handed over for Kapur J. getting it registered to Mithulal who was an attorney of two of the arbitrators Magandas and Sakarchand. On February 7, 1947, he presented it for registration to the Sub-Registrar but the Sub-Registrar returned it as it was not accompanied by a list and particulars of the property covered by the award. On February 15, 1947, the list and particulars signed by Mithulal were supplied and the award was represented for registration by Mithulal. As he was an attorney of only two of the three arbitrators the Sub-Registrar registered the document on March 26, 1947, in regard to said arbitrators and refused it qua the third arbitrator, Bhogilal. But under the orders of the Registrar the document was registered in regard to Bhogilal also and it was refiled on July 21, 1948, in the Court of the First Additional District Judge. He ordered the two proceedings one under s. 192 of the Succession Act and the other under the Arbitration Act to be separated and the proceedings under the Arbitration Act were ordered to be registered as a suit on August 14, 1948, and on August 30, the court ordered a proper application as required under the High Court Rules to be filed. On September 15, 1948, an application under s. 14(2) of the Arbitration Act was filed. On October 14, 1948, the appellant filed an application for setting aside the award and therein raised various objections which were rejected and on November 22, 1949, a judgment was passed. in accordance with the terms of the award followed by a decree. Against this order the appellant took an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed on February Hl, 1954. The High Court held that the application filed by the respondent dated September 15, 1948, under s. 14(2) of the Arbitration· Act was not within time but the original application filed by the arbitrators on October 21, 1946, was within time; that no objection could be taken to the award on the ground that f - - - - S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 815 there were two awards one by ;he arbitrators and 1 ~6° the other by Mithulal who had added to the award by giving the list and particulars; that the First . Cha.;:alat · . Additional District Judge was authorised to extend Mst. samarath Bai time for making an award on the application of the arbitrators and he was properly seized of the case ; Kapur J. that no misconduct had been proved and that no illegality had been established and that the appellant : did not get anything under the will except on adoption nor was he until then constituted an executor. Against this judgment this appeal has been filed on a certificate by the High Court. In appeal before us counsel for the appellant raised six points: (I) the filing of the award was not within time as no application was made under s. 14 within the time allowed by the Limitation Act; (2) that the award required registration and was not registered in accordance with law and the mere fact that it was registered does not clothe it with legality ; (3) the :First Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to grant three months' extension of time to the arbitrators for . making the award which was granted on July 26, 1946; (4) that the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct; (5) that the award is in excess of the power given to the arbitrators under the agreement of arbitration and (6) even ifthe award was proper and legal the respondent had refused to adopt the appellant and therefore the decree should have been as provided by the award on the happening of that contingency and in the alternative the First Additional District Judge who passed the decree had no jurisdiction to take.subsequent events into consideration. In our opinion points nos. I, 2 and 3 are wholly without substance. The award was made on October 18, 1946, and the arbitrators filed it in the court of the First Additional District Judge and they also gave notice to the parties by registered post informing them of the making of the award. It has not been shown as to how the filing of the award is barred by limitation. Article 178 of the Limitation Act which was I Of • 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] r9~o relied upon by the appellant applies to applications made by the parties and not to the filing of the award Cha1npalal v. by the arbitrators. Mst. Samarath Bai The second question that the award required registration and could not bet filed by the arbitrators T