1 was number companypetent because by an award passed by respondent No.
Lachmi Devi and Smt.
Civil Appeal No.
On January 31, 1963, the objections were dismissed by Miss Harmohinder Kaur, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, as time barred, but she did number make the award a rule of the Court as there was a further objection to the effect that the award number having been executed on a properly stamped paper and number having been registered, was number admissible in evidence.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated April 27, 1965 of the Punjab High Court in Civil Revision No.
Smt Nirmal Kanda Lajya Devi Devi Devi Reap.
4 Minor Smt.
This objection was dealt with by Shri Om Parkash Saini, Subordinate Judge, First Class, Ludhiana, who, by his order, dated June 5, 1963, held that the award in question was number admissible in evidence as it was executed on deficiently stamped paper and was number registered.
Husband of Gujri Harbans Lal D Sudarshan L D husband of Kamla Wati husband of Lachmi Devi Resp.6 Satish Rakeah Jatindar Kaka Chand Surinder Kumar Kumar Kumar Kumar Minor Rani Resp.
An appeal was taken to the District Judge, and the Additional District Judge by his order, dated November 23, 1964, upheld the order of the Subordinate Judge.
296 of 1960 judgment delivered on December 6, 1962.
One of the objections was that the award dated October 21, 1956, was number admissible in evidence for want of proper stamp and registration and companyld number, therefore, be made a rule of the Court.
822 of 1966.
A revision was then taken to the High Court.
1 The Judgment of S.M. SIKRI and R.S. BACHAWAT was delivered by SIKRI, J.K.S. HEGDE, J., delivered a separate Opinion.
3 Reap.4 Reap.5 On the death of Sohan Lal, Behari Lal was appointed as arbitrator by Harbans Lal, Surinder Kumar then a minor through his mother Smt.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On March 11, 1962, Behari Lal, arbitrator, filed an application under s. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 X of 1940 hereinafter referred to as the Act for filing the award in Court and for making the same a rule of the Court.
Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment, dated April 27, 1965, of the High Court of Punjab at Chandigarh S. B. Capoor, J. dismissing Civil Revision No.
841 of 1964.
This suit was dismissed as withdrawn on March 13, 1962.
K. Sen, S.V. Gupte, B.P. Maheshwari and R.K. Maheshwari, for respondent No.
Civil appeal No.
Sarjoo Prasad, D.N. Mishra and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
The Civil Revision arose out of the following facts.
841 of 1964.
Behari Lal, by his award dated October 21, 1956, divided the property into two equal shares, between Harbans Lal and Surinder Kumar.
Gujri, widow of Sohan Lal, for partition of the joint property.
The following pedigree table shows the relationship between the parties Sohan Lal Decd.
6 App.
Harbans Lal died on May 20, 1960, upon which Surinder Kumar filed a suit for partition of the properties, the subject matter of the award.
