Telangana High Court
Katepalli Vishwanatham vs Katepalli Srinivasulu on 23 August, 2022
Bench: P Naveen Rao, J Sreenivas Rao
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:
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
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
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
