1. This appeal has been taken by the plaintiffs from an order refusing to file an award. The plaintiff's case was that there was a reference to arbitrators and an arbitration and award made without the intervention of the Court, and they applied to the Court that the award be filed in Court. The Judge held that the award not being registered was not admissible in evidence, in view of Section 49, Registration Act, and dismissed the suit.
2. The award is a private award. Prior to the amendment of Section 17, Registration Act by Section 10, Transfer of Property (Amendment) Supplementary Act, 1929, Section 17(2)(vi) contained an exception as regards ' any award,' and so private award, though falling within Section 17(1)(b), was excepted from the category of documents compulsorily registrable. The appellant's contention is that the effect of the words ' and any award' being deleted by amendment was not to make the registration of private awards compulsory but to place private awards on the same footing as awards of arbitrators made through the intervention of Courts. It is said that both classes of awards belong to one and same class of documents, as neither without a decree passed on it, purports or operates to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish whether in present or in future any right, title or interest in immoveable property. The answer to this argument is that whereas an award made by arbitrators under orders of the Court has no force until a decree is passed on it a private award, if it is valid, is operative even though neither party has sought to enforce it by a regular suit: Muhammad Newaz Khan v. Alam Khan, (1891) 18 Cal 414; Bhajahari Saha Banikya v. Behari Lal, (1906) 33 Cal 881 and Baidyanath v. Panchanan, 1924 Cal 72. A private award therefore falls within the class of documents specified in Section 17(1) (b), Registration Act, whereas an award of the other class does not. By the amendment the exception having been removed the award in the present case, satisfying as it does the requirement as to value, is compulsorily registrable. Section 49 of the Act would rule it out if it is sought to use it as evidence of a transaction affecting the property, which is the purpose for which it is intended to be used in the present case: Bachchan Lal v. Narottam Dutt, 1933 All 59. The appeal is dismissed with costs two gold mohurs.