Case: S.V. Chandra Pandian &amp; Others Vs. S. V. Sivalinga Nadar &amp; Others

inclusive of immovable properties, is movable property and the assignment of the share on dissolution of the partnership did not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration act. The decision, therefore, turned on the interpretation of the award in regard to the nature of the assignment made in favour of the appellant. So far as the second a case is concerned, we think it has no bearing since that was not a case of assignment of partnership property under a dissolution deed. In that case, the dispute was between two brothers in 2-1/2 kills of land situate in Panipat, Haryana. The said land stood in the name of one brother - the appellant. The respondent contended that he was a benamidar and that was the dispute which was referred to arbitration. The Arbitrator made his award and applied to the Court for making it the rule of the Court. Objections were filed by the appellant raising various contentions. The award declared that half share of the ownership of the appellant shall "be now owned by Shri. Ram Lal, the respondent in addition to his half share owned in those lands". Therefore, the award transferred half share of the appellant to the respondent and since the value thereof exceeded Rs. 100, it was held that it required registration. It is, therefore, obvious that this case has no bearing on the point in issue herein 18. In the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the award required registration because of an erroneous reading of the award. The Division Bench after extensively reproducing from the Schedules A to F of the award proceeded to state in paragraph 39 that the allotments are exclusive to the brothers and they get independent rights of their own under the award in the properties allotted under the schedule and hence it is not a case purely of assignment of the share in the partnership but it confers exclusive rights to the allottees. On this line of reasoning it concluded that the award required registration. The court next pointed out in paragraph 42 of the judgment that the award also partitions certain immovable properties jointly owned by the disputants. In this connection it has placed reliance on paragraph 10(c) of the award which reads as under "(c). Other Lands and Buildings and House properties belonging to S. V. Sivalinga Nadar & Bros., standing in the name of the firms and/or otherwise jointly owned by the disputants. These have been allotted by us to one or other or jointly to some of the disputants as per schedules annexed hereto." The reasons which weighted with the Division Bench of the High Court ion concluding that the award requires registration appear to be based on an erroneous reading of the award. We have carefully read the award and it is manifest therefrom that the Arbitrators had confined themselves to the properties belonging to the two firms in question and scrupulously avoided dealing with the properties not belonging to the firm. This is manifest from paragraph 15 to 18 of the award. However, properties standing in the names of disputants, individually or jointly, and others as benamidars but belonging to the firm also came to be included in the distribution of the surplus partnership asset under the award. That is the purport of paragraph 10(c) extracted hereinabove. When on settlement of accounts the residue is required to be divided amount the partners in proportions in which they entitled to share profits under sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of Section 48, the properties will have to be allocated to the partners as falling to their share on the distribution of the residue and, therefore, the Arbitrators indicated in the schedules the properties falling to the share of each brother. Mere statements that a certain property will now exclusively belong to one partner or the other, as the case may be, cannot change the character of the document or the nature of assignment because that would in any case be the affect on the distribution of the residue. The property falling to the share of the partner on the distribution of the residue would natural then belong to him exclusively but so long as in the eye of law it is money and not immovable property there is no question of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Besides, as stated earlier, even if one looks at the award as allocating certain immovable property since there is no transfer, no partition or extinguishment of any right therein there is no question of application of Section 17(1) of the Registration act. The reference to other land and buildings and house properties jointly owned by the disputants in clause (c) of paragraph 10 of the award merely indicates that certain properties belonging to the firm stood in the names of individual partners or in their joint names but they belonged to the firm and, therefore, they were taken into account for the purpose of settlement of accounts under Section 48 of the Partnership Act and distributed on the determination of the residue. The award read as a whole makes it absolutely clear that the Arbitrators had confined themselves to the properties belonging to the two firms and had scrupulously avoid other properties in regard to which they did not reach the conclusion that they belonged to the firm. On a correct reading of the award, we are satisfied that the award seeks to distribute the residue after settlement of accounts on dissolution. While distributing the residue the Arbitrators allocated the properties to the partners and showed them in the scheduled them in the schedules appended to the award. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a true reading of the award as a whole, there is no doubt that it essentially deals with the distribution of the surplus properties belonging to the dissolved firms. The award, therefore, did not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. In the present case, the Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the award required registration because of an erroneous reading of the award. The Division Bench after extensively reproducing from the Schedules A to F of the award proceeded to state in paragraph 39 that the allotments are exclusive to the brothers and they get independent rights of their own under the award in the properties allotted under the schedule and hence it is not a case purely of assignment of the share in the partnership but it confers exclusive rights to the allottees. On this line of reasoning it concluded that the award required registration. The court next pointed out in paragraph 42 of the judgment that the award also partitions certain immovable properties jointly owned by the disputants. In this connection it has placed reliance on paragraph 10(c) of the award which reads asOther Lands and Buildings and House properties belonging to S. V. Sivalinga Nadar & Bros., standing in the name of the firms and/or otherwise jointly owned by the disputants. These have been allotted by us to one or other or jointly to some of the disputants as per schedules annexedreasons which weighted with the Division Bench of the High Court ion concluding that the award requires registration appear to be based on an erroneous reading of the award. We have carefully read the award and it is manifest therefrom that the Arbitrators had confined themselves to the properties belonging to the two firms in question and scrupulously avoided dealing with the properties not belonging to the firm. This is manifest from paragraph 15 to 18 of the award. However, properties standing in the names of disputants, individually or jointly, and others as benamidars but belonging to the firm also came to be included in the distribution of the surplus partnership asset under the award. That is the purport of paragraph 10(c) extracted hereinabove. When on settlement of accounts the residue is required to be divided amount the partners in proportions in which they entitled to share profits under sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of Section 48, the properties will have to be allocated to the partners as falling to their share on the distribution of the residue and, therefore, the Arbitrators indicated in the schedules the properties falling to the share of each brother. Mere statements that a certain property will now exclusively belong to one partner or the other, as the case may be, cannot change the character of the document or the nature of assignment because that would in any case be the affect on the distribution of the residue. The property falling to the share of the partner on the distribution of the residue would natural then belong to him exclusively but so long as in the eye of law it is money and not immovable property there is no question of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Besides, as stated earlier, even if one looks at the award as allocating certain immovable property since there is no transfer, no partition or extinguishment of any right therein there is no question of application of Section 17(1) of the Registration act. The reference to other land and buildings and house properties jointly owned by the disputants in clause (c) of paragraph 10 of the award merely indicates that certain properties belonging to the firm stood in the names of individual partners or in their joint names but they belonged to the firm and, therefore, they were taken into account for the purpose of settlement of accounts under Section 48 of the Partnership Act and distributed on the determination of the residue. The award read as a whole makes it absolutely clear that the Arbitrators had confined themselves to the properties belonging to the two firms and had scrupulously avoid other properties in regard to which they did not reach the conclusion that they belonged to the firm. On a correct reading of the award, we are satisfied that the award seeks to distribute the residue after settlement of accounts on dissolution. While distributing the residue the Arbitrators allocated the properties to the partners and showed them in the scheduled them in the schedules appended to the award. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a true reading of the award as a whole, there is no doubt that it essentially deals with the distribution of the surplus properties belonging to the dissolved firms. The award, therefore, did not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act