{"id":24856,"date":"1968-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1968-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968"},"modified":"2018-02-13T12:30:24","modified_gmt":"2018-02-13T07:00:24","slug":"satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968","title":{"rendered":"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 833, \t\t 1969 SCR (2) 240<\/div>\n
Author: S Sikri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sikri, S.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSATISH KUMAR & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSURINDER KUMAR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/09\/1968\n\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBENCH:\nSIKRI, S.M.\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nHEGDE, K.S.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  833\t\t  1969 SCR  (2) 240\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1974 SC1066\t (5)\n R\t    1974 SC1912\t (6)\n D\t    1984 SC 241\t (67)\n D\t    1987 SC 841\t (15)\n R\t    1989 SC1923\t (16)\n R\t    1990 SC  53\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\n     Indian  Arbitration Act (10 of 1940)--Award in  respect\nof property over Rs. 100--Registration if compulsory.\n     Indian  Registration   Act\t  (16  of  1908),  s   17(1)\n(b)--Award   in\t respect  of  immovable\t property  over\t Rs.\n100--Registration if compulsory.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    An arbitrator appointed by the appellants and respondent\npartitioned their immovable property exceeding the value  of\nRs.  100.  The arbitrator applied under s. 14 of the  Indian\nArbitration  Act, 1940 to the Court for making the  award  a\nrule  of the court.  On the question whether the  award\t was\nadmissible in evidence as it was not registered,\n    HELD:(per Full Court.) The award required registration.\n    (Per  Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.) All claims which are\t the\nsubject\t matter of a reference to arbitration merge  in\t the\naward  which  is pronounced In the  proceedings\t before\t the\narbitrator  and\t after\tan award has  been  pronounced,\t the\nrights and liabilities of the parties in respect of the said\nclaims\tcan  be\t determined only on the basis  of  the\tsaid\naward.\t After\tan  award is pronounced, no  action  can  be\nstarted\t on  the original claim which had been\tthe  subject\nmatter\tof the reference.  The position under the Act is  in\nno  way different from what it was before the Act came\tinto\nforce.\tTherefore. the conferment of exclusive\tjurisdiction\non  'a\tcourt under the Arbitration Act does  not  make\t 'an\naward  any less binding than it was under the provisions  of\nthe  Second  Schedule of the Code of Civil  Procedure.\t The\nfiling\tof  an\tunregistered  award  under  s.\t49  of\t the\nRegistration  Act is not prohibited: what is  prohibited  is\nthat  it  cannot  be taken into evidence  so  as  to  affect\nimmovable  property falling under s. 17 of the\tRegistration\nAct.   It cannot be said that the registration does  not  in\nany manner add to its efficacy or give it added\t competence.\nIf  an award affects immovable property order the  value  of\nRs.  100  its registration does get rid\t of  the  disability\ncreated\t by  s.\t 49 of the Registration Act.  The  award  in\nquestion  was  not  a mere waste paper but  had\t some  legal\neffect\tand  it\t plainly   purports  to\t affect\t or  affects\nproperty   within  the\tmeaning\t of  s.\t 17(1)(b)   of\t the\nRegistration Act [248 F-H; 249 F, 250 E]\n    M\/s.  Uttam Singh Dugal & Co. v. Union of  India,\tC.A.\nNo.<\/a>   162  of  1962  dated  11-10-1962,\t Champalal  v.\tMst.\nSamarath  Bai,<\/a>\t[1960]\t2 S.C.R. 810.  816  and\t Kashinathsa\nYamosa Kabadi v. Narsingsa Baskarsa Kabadi,<\/a> [1961] 3  S.C.R.\n792, 806, followed.\n    Sheonarain Lal v. Prabhu Chand, I.L.R. 37 Pat.  252\t and\nSardooll  Singh v. Hari Singh I.L.R. [1967] 1 Punj.  &\tHar.\n622 disapproved.\n    Chamanlal Girdhat Ghanchi v. Dhayabhai Nathubhai  Ghandi\nA.I.R.\t1938   Bom.   422,  M.A.  M.  Salamullah  Khan\tv.M.\nNoorullah  Khan, A.I.R. 1939 Nag. 233, Keltaha v.U.  Pannawa\nA.I.R.\t1940 Rang. 228, Nani Bela Saha\tv. Ram\tGopal  Saha.\nA.I.R. 1945 Cal. 19 and Bhajahari Saha Banikya v. Behary Lal\nBasak, 33 Cal. 881, approved.\n    (Per Hegde. J. concurring): It is one thing to say\tthat\na  right is not created. it is an entirely  different  thing\nto. say that the right created can-\n245\nnot be enforced without further steps.\tAn award does create\nrights in that property but those rights cannot be  enforced\nuntil  the  award is made a decree of the  Court.   For\t the\npurpose of s. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, all that had\nto  be\tseen  is whether the award in  question\t purport  or\noperate\t to create or declare, assign, limit or\t  extinguish\nwhether\t  in present or future any right, title or  interest\nwhether\t vested\t or contingent of the value of\tone  hundred\nrupees\tand upwards to or in immovable property.   Since  it\ndoes, it is compulsorily registerable. [252 B-D]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 822  of
\n1966.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal  by special leave from the judgment\t and  order,
\ndated  April  27,  1965 of the Punjab High  Court  in  Civil
\nRevision No. 841 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
     Sarjoo Prasad, D.N. Mishra and Ravinder Narain, for the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
     A.K.   Sen,  S.V.\tGupte,\tB.P.  Maheshwari  and\tR.K.\n<\/p>\n
Maheshwari, for respondent No. 1<\/span><\/p>\n
     The  Judgment  of\tS.M. SIKRI  and\t R.S.  BACHAWAT\t was
\ndelivered  by SIKRI, J.K.S. HEGDE, J., delivered a  separate
\nOpinion.\n<\/p>\n
     Sikri,  J.\t  This appeal by special leave\tis  directed
\nagainst\t the  judgment, dated April 27, 1965,  of  the\tHigh
\nCourt of Punjab at Chandigarh (S. B. Capoor, J.)  dismissing
\nCivil  Revision No. 841 of 1964.  The Civil  Revision  arose
\nout of\tthe  following facts.\n<\/p>\n
     The  following  pedigree table shows  the\trelationship
\nbetween the parties:\n<\/p>\n
\t Sohan Lal (Decd.) Husband of Gujri\n<\/p>\n
————————————————-\n<\/p>\n
 Harbans Lal (D)\t\t\t Sudarshan L(D)\n husband of Kamla Wati\t\t       husband of Lachmi\n\t\t\t\t\t     Devi (Resp.6)\n<\/pre>\n
 Satish\t  Rakeah   Jatindar   Kaka   Chand  Surinder Kumar
\n  Kumar\t  Kumar\t   Kumar    (Minor)   Rani   (Resp. 6)
\n  App. 1  App. 2   App. 3   App. 4    (Minor)
\n\t\t\t   Smt.\t\t Smt.\t       Smt
\n\t\t\t   Nirmal\t Kanda\t       Lajya
\n\t\t\t   Devi\t\t Devi\t       Devi
\n\t\t\t   Reap. 3\t Reap.4\t      Reap.5
\nOn  the\t death of Sohan Lal, Behari Lal was   appointed\t  as
\narbitrator  by\tHarbans Lal, Surinder Kumar  (then  a  minor
\nthrough\t    his\t mother Smt. Lachmi Devi)  and\tSmt.  Gujri,
\nwidow  of  Sohan Lal, for partition of the  joint  property.
\nBehari Lal, by his award dated October 21, 1956, divided the
\nproperty into two  equal
\n246<\/span>
\nshares, between Harbans Lal and Surinder Kumar.\t Harbans Lal
\nand  Surinder Kumar signed the award.  Harbans Lal  died  on
\nMay  20,  1960, upon which Surinder Kumar filed a  suit\t for
\npartition  of  the  properties, the  subject-matter  of\t the
\naward.\t This suit was dismissed as withdrawn on  March\t 13,
\n1962.\tOn March 11, 1962, Behari Lal, arbitrator, filed  an
\napplication under s. 14 of the Indian Arbitration Act,\t1940
\n(X of 1940)–hereinafter referred to as the Act–for  filing
\nthe  award  in Court and for making the same a rule  of\t the
\nCourt.\t Surinder   Kumar  entered  appearance\t and   filed
\nobjections  under s. 30 of the Act.  One of  the  objections
\nwas  that  the\taward  dated  October  21,  1956,  was\t not
\nadmissible  in\tevidence  for  want  of\t proper\t stamp\t and
\nregistration  and could not, ‘therefore, be made a  rule  of
\nthe  Court.   On  January  31,\t1963,  the  objections\twere
\ndismissed by Miss Harmohinder Kaur, Subordinate Judge, First
\nClass,\tLudhiana, as time-barred, but she did not  make\t the
\naward  a rule of the Court as there was a further  objection
\nto  the effect that the award not having been executed on  a
\nproperly  stamped paper and  not  having   been\t registered,
\nwas  not admissible in evidence.  This objection  was  dealt
\nwith  by  Shri Om Parkash Saini,  Subordinate  Judge,  First
\nClass, Ludhiana, who, by his order, dated June 5, 1963, held
\nthat the award in question was not admissible in evidence as
\nit  was\t executed on deficiently stamped paper and  was\t not
\nregistered.  He accordingly dismissed the application.
\n    An\tappeal\twas  taken to the District  Judge,  and\t the
\nAdditional  District Judge by his order, dated November\t 23,
\n1964, upheld the order of the Subordinate Judge.  A revision
\nwas then taken to the High Court.  Capoor, J., held that the
\naward\t actually   effected  a\t  partition   and   required
\nregistration  under s. 17(1)(b) of the\tIndian\tRegistration
\nAct, 1908.  The learned Judge dissented from the decision of
\n&  Full\t Bench of the Patna High Court in Seonarain  Lal  v.
\nPrabhu Chand(1), and preferred to follow the view  expressed
\nby  the Bombay High Court  in  Chimanlal Girdhar Ghanchi  v.
\nDahyabhai Nathubhai Ghandhi,(2) by the Nagpur High Court  in
\nM  .A.\tM. Salamullah Khan v.M. Noorullah  Khan,(3)  by\t the
\nRangoon High Court in U. Keltaha v.U. Pannawa,(4) and by the
\nCalcutta High Court in Nani Bela Saha v. Ram Gopal  Saha(5).
\nHe accordingly dismissed the  revision petition.
\n    The decision of the Patna High Court was, however, later
\nfollowed  by  a Full Bench of the Punjab  and  Haryana\tHigh
\nCourt  in  Sardool Singh v. Hari Singh(6),  judgment,  dated
\nNovember 8, 1966.\n<\/p>\n
(1) I.L.R. 37 Pat. 252.\t\t (2) A.I.R. 1938 Bom. 422.
\n(3) A.I.R. 1939 Nag. 233, 235.\t (4) A.I.R. 1940 Rang. 228.
\n(5) A.I.R. 1945 Cal. 19, 21-22. (6) I.L.R. [1967] 1 Pun.&
\nHat. 622.\n<\/p>\n
247<\/span><\/p>\n
    The question which arises before us is whether an  award
\ngiven  under  the  Act\ton  a  private\treference   requires
\nregistration  under s. 17(1) (b) of the Indian\tRegistration
\nAct,  if the award effects partition of\t immovable  property
\nexceeding  the\tvalue of Rs. 100. The main reason  given  by
\nSinha, J. speaking for the Patna Full Bench in Seonarain Lal
\nv. Prabhu Chand(1), for holding that such an award does. not
\nrequire registration is that  under  the scheme of the Act a
\nprivate\t award,\t unless a decree is passed in terms  of\t the
\naward, has no legal effect.  this, according to him, follows
\nfrom the conclusion that once a matter has been referred  to
\narbitration,  it comes within the immediate control  of\t the
\nCourt  under  the  Act,\t and  no  other\t authority  has\t any
\njurisdiction to deal with the matter except as provided\t for
\nin s. 35 of the Act.  He thought that what distinguishes the
\nprovisions in the Arbitration Act from the provisions in the
\nSecond\tSchedule in the Code of Civil Procedure is that\t the
\nAct  bars jurisdiction of all Courts to Pronounce  upon\t the
\nvalidity,  effect  or existence of an award  or\t arbitration
\nagreement except the Court under the Act itself. Sinha,\t J.,
\nlooking\t at it from another point. of view, namely, that  an
\naward  is only effective when a decree follows the  judgment
\nupon  the award, observed that such an award may be  covered
\nby the exception mentioned in section 17(2)(vi) (any  decree
\nor order of a Court) of the Registration Act.
\n    The\t Punjab Full Bench has followed this reasoning,\t and
\nindeed\treproduced  paras 5 to 15 of the  Patna\t Full  Bench
\njudgment  in its own judgment.\tMahajan, J., with  whom\t the
\ntwo other Judges agreed, observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “I  am  in respectful agreement  with\t the
\n\t      entire  line  of-reasoning in the\t Patna\tcase
\n\t      barring the underlined observations :–
\n\t\t   “…\t an award is only effective  when  a
\n\t      decree follows the judgment on the award\tsuch
\n\t      an  award\t may  be covered  by  the  exception
\n\t      mentioned in section 17(2) (vi) (any decree or
\n\t      order of a Court) of the Registration Act.”
\n\t\t   If  these.  observations  are  meant\t  to
\n\t      convey  that award as such is covered  by\t the
\n\t      exception\t (vi)  of  section  17\t(2)  of\t the
\n\t      Registration  Act, I am unable to\t agree.\t But
\n\t      the  decree that follows the award when it  is
\n\t      made a rule of the Court, no exception can  be
\n\t      taken  to\t the  view that\t such  a  decree  is
\n\t      covered by the exception.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\tThe  Punjab Full Bench gave  two  additional
\n\t      reasons:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “(1) If an award is registered, it is still  a
\n\t      waste  paper unless it is made a rule  of\t the
\n\t      Court.   Thus  registration does not,  in\t any
\n\t      manner,  add  to its efficacy or give  it\t any
\n\t      added competence.\t  Section  32  of  the
\n(1) I.L.R. 37 Pat.252.\n<\/p>\n
248<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Arbitration  Act is specific for no right\t can
\n\t      be  rounded on an award as such  after  coming
\n\t      into force of the 1940 Arbitration Act;
\n\t\t  (2) It is not disputed and indeed it could
\n\t      not  be  that the Court has the  power,  under
\n\t      section  16, to remit the award from  time  to
\n\t      time.   If  registration\tof  an award  is  an
\n\t      essential\t pre-requisite\tbefore it  could  be
\n\t      made  a  rule of the Court under\tsection\t 17,
\n\t      every  time  an award is remitted\t and  a\t new
\n\t      award  is\t made, the new\taward  will  require
\n\t      registration.   The result would be  that,  in
\n\t      the  same controversy, there can be  not\tonly
\n\t      one registration but a number of registrations
\n\t      regarding\t the  same title, a situation  which
\n\t      is  not  even envisaged  by  the\tRegistration
\n\t      Act.”\n<\/p>\n
It seems to us that the main reason given by the two. Full
\nBenches\t for their conclusion is contrary to. what was\theld
\nby  this  Court in its unreported decision  in\tM,Is.  Uttam
\nSingh  Dugal & Co. v. The Union of India<\/a>(1).  The  facts  in
\nthis case, shortly stated, were that M\/s. Uttam Singh  Dugal
\n&  Co.\tfiled an application under s. 33 of the Act  in\t the
\nCourt  of  the Subordinate Judge,Hazaribag.   The  Union  of
\nIndia, respondent No. 1, called upon respondent No. 2,\tCol.
\nS.K. Bose, to adjudicate upon the matter  in dispute between
\nrespondent No. 1 and the appellant company.The case of\tM\/s.
\nUttam Singh Dugal & Co. was that this purported reference to
\nrespondent No. 2 for adjudication on the  matters alleged to
\nbe  in\tdispute between them and respondent No.\t 1  was\t not
\ncompetent because by an award passed by respondent No. 2  on
\nApril 23, 1952, all the. relevant disputes between them\t had
\nbeen decided.  The High Court held inter alia that the first
\naward  did not create any bar against the competence of\t the
\nsecond\treference.  On appeal this Court after holding\tthat
\nthe  application  under\t s. 33\twas  competent\tobserved  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  true  legal position in  regard  to\t the
\n\t      effect  of an award is not in dispute.  It  is
\n\t      well  settled  that  as a\t general  rule,\t all
\n\t      claims  which  are  the  subject-matter  of  a
\n\t      reference\t to arbitration merge in  the  award
\n\t      which is pronounced in the proceedings  before
\n\t      the  arbitrator  and that after an  award\t has
\n\t      been  pronounced,\t the rights and\t liabilities
\n\t      of the parties in respect of the said  claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      can  be  determined only on the basis  of\t the
\n\t      said award.  After an award is pronounced,  no
\n\t      action  can be started on the  original  claim
\n\t      which  had  been the   subject-matter  of\t the
\n\t      reference. As has been observed by  Mookerjee,
\n\t      J.  in  the  case of  Bhajahari  Saha  Banikya
\n\t      v.Behary Lal Basak(2) “the  award is, in fact,
\n\t      a final
\n(1)  Civil  Appeal  No. 162 of\t1962-judgment  delivered  on
\nOctober 11, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  33 Cal. 881 at p. 898.\n<\/p>\n
249<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      adjudication  of a Court of the ‘parties’\t own
\n\t      choice,  and until impeached  upon  sufficient
\n\t      grounds  in  an  appropriate  proceeding,\t  an
\n\t      award, which is on the fact of it regular,  is
\n\t      conclusive upon the merits of the\t controversy
\n\t      submitted,  unless   possibly   the    parties
\n\t      have  intended  that the award  shall  not  be
\n\t      final  and conclusive… in reality, an  award
\n\t      possesses\t all the elements of vitality,\teven
\n\t      though it has not been formally enforced,\t and
\n\t      it  may  be  relied upon\t in   a\t  litigation
\n\t      between  the parties relating  to\t  the\tsame
\n\t      subjectmatter.”  This conclusion, according to
\n\t      the    learned  Judge,  is  based\t  upon\t the
\n\t      elementary  principle  that,  as\tbetween\t the
\n\t      parties\tand  their  privies,  an  award\t  is
\n\t      entitled\tto that respect which is due to\t the
\n\t      judgment\t of   a\t court\t of   last   resort.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Therefore,   if  the  award  which  has\tbeen
\n\t      pronounced  between the parties has, in  fact,
\n\t      or  can, in law, be deemed to have dealt\twith
\n\t      the  present  dispute,  the  second  reference
\n\t\t\t    would be incompetent. This position\t a
\nlso   has
\n\t      not been\tand  cannot be seriously disputed.”‘
\n     This Court then held on the merits “that the dispute in
\nregard\tto overpayments which are sought to be. referred  to
\nthe arbitration of respondent No. 2 by the second  reference
\nare not new disputes; they are disputes in regard to. claims
\nwhich  the  Chief  Engineer  should  have  made\t before\t the
\narbitration   under  the  first\t reference.”\tThis   Court
\naccordingly  allowed  the  appeal and set  aside  the  order
\npassed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     This  judgment is binding on us.  In our  opinion\tthis
\njudgment lays down that the position under the Act is in  no
\nway  different\tfrom what it was before the  Act  came\tinto
\nforce,\tand that an award has some legal force and is not  a
\nmere  waste paper.  If the award in question is not  a\tmere
\nwaste paper but has some legal effect it plainly purports to
\nor affects property within the meaning of s. 17(1)(b) of the
\nRegistration Act.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t may mention that an appeal was filed in this  Court
\nagainst the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High
\nCourt,\twhich had referred the case of\tSheonarain  Lal\t  v.
\nPrabhu\tChand(1)  to the Full Bench for opinion\t on  certain
\nquestions and which decided the case in accordance with that
\nopinion,  and  the  same  was dismissed\t by  this  Court  in
\nSheonarain  Lal v. Rameshwari Devi(2) in which the  judgment
\nwas  delivered by the same Bench which decided the  case  of
\nM\/s. Uttam Singh Dugal v. The Union of India<\/a>(a). It is\ttrue
\nthat this Court in Sheonarain  Lal v. Rameshwari Devi(2) did
\nnot expressly rule on the validity
\n(1) I.L.R. 37 Pat. 252.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Civil  appeal No. 296 of  1960–judgment  delivered  on
\nDecember 6, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  Civil  Appeal No. 162 of  1962–judgment  delivered  on
\nOctober 11, 1962.\n<\/p>\n
Sup. C1\/69–17
\n250<\/span>
\nof  the answer given by the Patna Full Bench  in  Sheonarain
\nLal  v.\t Prabhu Chand(1) that such awards  did\tnot  require
\nregistration, but decided the case on the point whether\t the
\naward in dispute in that case in fact purported or  operated
\nto  create a right, title or interest of the value  of\tmore
\nthan  Rs. 100 in immovable properties.\tBut,  after  holding
\nthat  the document did not operate to create  or  extinguish
\nany right in immovable property, this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “The position would have been otherwise if
\n\t\t\t    the\t arbitrators  had  directed  by\t t
\nhe  award
\n\t      itself  that  tiffs shop would  go  to  Prabhu
\n\t      Chand  without any further document.  In\tthat
\n\t      case  the award itself would have\t created  in
\n\t      Prabhuchand a right to these properties.\tThat
\n\t      is  not, however, the provision in the  award.
\n\t      In  the  absence\tof  a  registered  document,
\n\t      Prabhu Chand would get no title on  the  award
\n\t      and   Sheonarain’s title would remain  in\t the
\n\t      shop.”\n<\/p>\n
    In this connection we may mention two other decisions of
\nthis  Court.  In Champalal v. Mst. Samarath  Bai<\/a>(2),  Kapur,\n<\/p>\n
1., speaking for the Court, observed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “The\tsecond\tquestion  that\tthe    award
\n\t      required\tregistration and would not be  filed
\n\t      by the arbitrators before it was registered is
\n\t      equally  without substance. The filing  of  an
\n\t      unregistered   award  under  s.  49   of\t the
\n\t      Registration  Act is not prohibited;  what  is
\n\t      prohibited  is  that it cannot be\t taken\tinto
\n\t      evidence\tso as to affect\t immovable  property
\n\t      falling under s. 17 of the Act. That the award
\n\t      required registration was. rightly admitted by
\n\t      both parties.”\n<\/p>\n
    Again   in\tKashtinathsa  Yamosa  Kabadi  v.   Narsingsa
\nBhctsKarsa  Kabadi<\/a>(3)  Shah  J.,  speaking  for\t the   Court
\nobserved:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t  “The records made by the Panchas about the
\n\t      division\tof the properties, it is true,\twere
\n\t      not  stamped nor were they registered.  It  is
\n\t      however  clear that if the record made by\t the
\n\t      Panchas  in so far as it deals with  immovable
\n\t      properties is regarded as a   non’testamentary
\n\t      instrument   purporting  or    operating\t  to
\n\t      create, .declare, assign, limit or  extinguish
\n\t      any  right,  title or  interest  in  immovable
\n\t      property,\t it was\t  compulsorily\tregisterable
\n\t      under   s.  17  of  the\tRegistration\tAct,
\n\t      and .would not in the absence of\tregistration
\n\t      be admissible in evidence.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
(1)  I.L,R. 37 Pat. 252.      (2) [1960] 2 S,C.R 810, 816
\n(3)  [1961] 3 S.C.R. 792, 806.\n<\/p>\n
251<\/span><\/p>\n
    In\tview of the above decisions it is not  necessary  to
\nrefute the other reasons given by both the Full Benches, but
\nout  of\t respect for the learned Judges we  will  deal\twith
\nthem.\tWe  may mention that no comment was  made  in  these
\ncases on the provisions of para 7 of Schedule 1 to the\tAct.
\nThis para provides:\n<\/p>\n
    “7. The award shall be final and binding on the  parties
\nand persons claiming under them respectively.”
\nIf  the\t award is final and binding on the  parties  it\t can
\nhardly be said that it is. a waste paper unless. it is\tmade
\na rule of the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tare  unable  to. appreciate why\t the  conferment  of
\nexclusive  jurisdiction\t on a court under the Act  makes  an
\naward any the less binding than it was under the  provisions
\nof the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure.\t The
\nPunjab\t Full Bench held that the registration does  not  in
\nany  manner  add  to  its efficacy  or\tgive  it  any  added
\ncompetence.   We cannot concur with these observations.\t  If
\nan award affects  immovable  property over the value of\t Rs.
\n100, its registration does get rid of the disability created
\nby s. 49 of the Registration Act.\n<\/p>\n
    Regarding  the  difficulty pointed out  by\tthe   Punjab
\nFull  Bench that there may be many registrations we are\t not
\ncalled upon to decide whether these difficulties would arise
\nbecause\t the  language of s. 17 of the Registration  Act  is
\nplain.\t It  may  be that no such  difficulties\t will  arise
\nbecause\t under\ts.  16(2) of the  Act  what  the  arbitrator
\nsubmits to the Court is his decision and it may be that\t the
\ndecision  may  not  be\tregisterable  under  s.\t 17  of\t the
\nRegistration  Act.   But as we have said before we  are\t not
\ncalled upon to decide this point.\n<\/p>\n
    In our opinion, Capoor, J., was right in dissenting from
\nthe  Patna Full Bench in Sheonarain Lal v.  Prabhu  Chand(1)
\nand holding that the award in dispute required registration.
\n    In\tthe result the appeal fails and is.  dismissed\twith
\ncosts.\n<\/p>\n
    We\tmay  make it clear that we are dealing only with  an
\naward  made  on\t a  reference by  the  parties\twithout\t the
\nintervention of court.\n<\/p>\n
    Hegde,  J. I agree.\t But I would like to add few  words.
\nArbitration  proceedings, broadly speaking may\tbe   divided
\ninto two stages.  The first stage commences with arbitration
\nagreement  and ends with the making of the award.   And\t the
\nsecond\tstage  relates\tto the\tenforcement  of\t the  award.
\nParagraph  7  of the First Schedule to the  Arbitration\t Act
\nlays down that, “the award shall be final and binding on the
\nparties\t and  persons  claiming\t under\tthem  respectively”.
\nTherefore  it is not possible to agree with the\t Full  Bench
\ndecisions of the Patna High Court (1)  I.L.R. 37 Part. 252.\n<\/p>\n
252<\/span><\/p>\n
and that of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that an  award
\nWhich is not made a decree of the Court has no existence  in
\nlaw.  The learned Judges’ who decided those cases appear  to
\nhave  proceeded on the basis that an award which  cannot  be
\nenforced  is not a valid award and the same does not  create
\nany  rights in the property which is the subject  matter  of
\nthe  award.  This in my opinion is not a  correct  approach.
\nThe  award  does create rights in that\tproperty  but  those
\nrights\tcannot be enforced until the award is made a  decree
\nof  the Court.\tIt is one thing to say that a right  is\t not
\ncreated,  it is an entirely different thing to say that\t the
\nright created cannot be enforced without further steps.\t For
\nthe purpose of s. 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, all that
\nwe  have to see is whether the award in question purport  or
\noperate\t to create or declare, assign, limit  or  extinguish
\nwhether\t in present or future any right, title\tor  interest
\nwhether\t vested\t or contingent of the value of\tone  hundred
\nrupees and upwards to or in immovable property.\t If it does,
\nit is compulsorily registerable.  In the aforementioned Full
\nBench  decisions  sufficient attention has not been given to
\ns. 17 of the Registration Act. The focus was entirely on the
\nprovisions  of\tthe Arbitration Act and there again  on\t the
\nenforcement of the award and not in the making of the award.
\nA  document may validly create rights but those\t rights\t may
\nnot  be enforceable for\t various  reasons. Section  17\tdoes
\nnot  concern  itself with the enforcement  of  rights.\tThat
\nSection\t is  attracted\tas  soon  as  its  requirements\t are
\nsatisfied  There  is no gainsaying the fact that  the  award
\nwith  which  we\t are concerned in this case,  at  any  rate,
\npurported to creat rights in immovable property of the value
\nof rupees more\tthan  one hundred.  Hence it is compulsorily
\nregisterable.\n<\/p>\n
Y.P.\t\t\t\t\t Appeal dismissed.\n253<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 833, 1969 SCR (2) 240 Author: S Sikri Bench: Sikri, S.M. PETITIONER: SATISH KUMAR & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: SURINDER KUMAR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27\/09\/1968 BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BENCH: SIKRI, S.M. BACHAWAT, R.S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-24856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSatish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1968-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-02-13T07:00:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968\",\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T07:00:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\"},\"wordCount\":3222,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\",\"name\":\"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1968-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-02-13T07:00:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1968-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-02-13T07:00:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968","datePublished":"1968-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T07:00:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968"},"wordCount":3222,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968","name":"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1968-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-02-13T07:00:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/satish-kumar-ors-vs-surinder-kumar-ors-on-27-september-1968#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Satish Kumar & Ors vs Surinder Kumar & Ors on 27 September, 1968"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24856","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=24856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}