HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4916 of 2011
Date:23.08.2022
Between:
Katepalli Vishwanatham S/o.Late Katepalli Gangaiah,
Hindu, Aged about 64 yrs,
R/o.3-1-210, Somasundaram Street,
Secunderabad 500 003 & another
.....Petitioners
And
Katepalli Srinivasulu S/o.Late Katepalli Gangaiah,
Hindu, Aged about 51 yrs, R/o.3-1-209,
Somasundaram Street, Secunderabad 500 003 & others
.....Respondents
The Court made the following:
-2-
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4916 of 2011 ORDER : (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao) Heard Sri R.A.Achuthanand, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. This revision is filed challenging the order in E.P.No.7 of 2010 dated 20.06.2011 passed by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.
3. E.P.No.7 of 2010 was filed with a prayer to direct the Judgment debtors No.1 and 2 to execute partition deed in respect of Schedule A to E properties, to direct the Judgment Debtors to execute Form No.5 in favour of Decree holder No.1 in respect of M/s.Katepalli Gangaiah in terms of the award dated 04.06.2006 filed before the Registrar of Firms and to direct the Judgment Debtors to execute Form No.5 in favour of decree holder No.2 in respect of M/s.Sri Gouri Shankar & Company.
4. The family members of the petitioners have come to settlement of division of assets and liabilities and in the presence of elders they have recorded the terms of settlement. Petitioners filed E.P.No.7 of 2010 praying the Court to treat the said settlement as an Award and to register the same under the Indian Registration Act. The said plea of -3- petitioners was rejected by the Court below holding that as the document is compulsorily registerable, it requires registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act and as the document was not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be looked into.
5. Petitioners themselves treated the family settlement as an Award and sought prayer before the Execution Court to issue directions to the respondents to register the partition deed in terms of the said settlement.
6. Prima-facie, the E.P., itself is not maintainable on the said prayers. Further, the settlement arrived at among the family members was not even registered and therefore, it cannot be called as an Award and apply the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. With reference to the prayers sought, the Execution Court looked into the document and having found that the document is compulsorily registerable under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, whereas it is not registered, the same is inadmissible in evidence and could not be looked into.
7. Having regard to the fact that it is not an Award passed, it cannot be called as an Award under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the prayer sought by the petitioners is not maintainable.
8. Having regard to the fact that the document is not registered, we do not see any error in the view taken by the Court below warranting -4- our interference. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J _______________________ J.SREENIVAS RAO, J 23rd August, 2022 Rds