2003 JTR(SC) 134
2003 4 AIC 129 ; 2003 AIR(SC) 1524 ; 2003 AIR(SCW) 881 ; 2003 2 AllMR(SC) 354 ; 2003 1 ArbLR 647 ; 2003 2 AWC 1018 ; 2003 1 BBCJ(SC) 181 ; 2003 1 CalLJ(SC) 309 ; 2003 2 CHN(SC) 147 ; 2003 1 CivCC 680 ; 2003 1 CTC 496 ; 2003 2 ICC 643 ; 2003 261 ITR 1 ; 2003 2 JLJR(SC) 206 ; 2003 1 JT 640 ; 2003 2 MLJ 134 ; 2003 1 RCR(Civ) 771 ; 2003 94 RD 257 ; 2003 1 Scale 642 ; 2003 3 SCC 229 ; 2003 1 SCR 868 ; 2003 129 Taxman 597 ; 2003 1 WLC 360 ; 2003 KHC 904 ; 2003 1 Supreme 921
2003(1) Supreme 921
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From A.P. High Court)
M.B. Shah, Ashok Bhan and Arun Kumar, JJ.
N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. -Appellants
versus
N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5680-81 of 1994
Decided on 5-2-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : A.T.M. Sampath, V. Balaji, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, Advocates.
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
An arbitration award by which residue assets of partnership firm are distributed amongst the partners on dissolution of the partnership firm does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 before making it rule of the Court.
Act
Referred
:ANDHRA PRADESH RULES FRAMED UNDER REGISTRATION ACT : S.17
ARBITRATION ACT : S.30
PARTNERSHIP ACT : S.48, S.4, S.6
(A) The dispute pertains to whether the allocation of residue assets of a partnership firm upon dissolution, effected through an arbitral award, mandates compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The award was challenged on grounds including misconduct and non-registration, with the trial and high courts treating registration as a prerequisite, thereby setting aside the award. The analysis must therefore examine the interplay between the provisions of the Registration Act, which governs the registration of instruments affecting immovable property, and the Partnership Act, which dictates the dissolution and asset distribution mechanics within a partnership. The specific sections invoked include Section 17 of the Registration Act, mandating registration for certain property transactions, alongside Sections 4, 6, and 48 of the Partnership Act, which govern partnership formation, rights, and dissolution-related adjustments, read alongside Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, addressing challenges to arbitral awards. This framework is critical to determining whether an internal reallocation among co-owners triggers statutory registration requirements.
(B) The core legal principles are that a partnership is not a distinct legal entity, and its assets are owned in equity by the partners as tenants in common; upon dissolution, the distribution of assets among partners is a realization of their individual interests, not a transfer of property, and thus falls outside the purview of Section 17 of the Registration Act. An award merely allocating the existing shares of the partners does not create, transfer, or assign any new interest in immovable property, and a mere dispute regarding arbitrator misconduct is distinct from the validity of the asset distribution itself.
Facts of the case:
A four-member family partnership firm faced internal disputes, leading to arbitration. An award dated 2nd October, 1972 distributed the dissolved firm's residue assets among the partners based on their shares. Challenges were filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, alleging misconduct and non-compliance with Section 17 of the Registration Act. While the High Court exonerated the arbitrators, it held the award unenforceable due to the alleged registration defect, prompting these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the partnership firm lacks legal personality, and its assets are owned by the partners. The award in question was a mechanism for settling accounts and allocating the partners' respective shares of the residue, involving no transfer or assignment of title. Consequently, the distribution did not fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, and the non-registration of the award was not a valid ground for denying its enforceability as a court order.
Issues:
Whether an arbitral award distributing residue assets of a dissolved partnership firm amongst the partners requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 to be enforceable?
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the partnership firm is not a separate legal entity and the distribution merely allocates the partners' existing shares in the assets with no transfer of ownership, the proceeding does not attract Section 17 of the Registration Act. The enforceability of the award as a rule of court is independent of registration requirements applicable to instruments transferring immovable property.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, the objections against the award are rejected, and the award is ordered to be made a rule of the Court.
(A) The dispute pertains to whether the allocation of residue assets of a partnership firm upon dissolution, effected through an arbitral award, mandates compulsory registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The award was challenged on grounds including misconduct and non-registration, with the trial and high courts treating registration as a prerequisite, thereby setting aside the award. The analysis must therefore examine the interplay between the provisions of the Registration Act, which governs the registration of instruments affecting immovable property, and the Partnership Act, which dictates the dissolution and asset distribution mechanics within a partnership. The specific sections invoked include Section 17 of the Registration Act, mandating registration for certain property transactions, alongside Sections 4, 6, and 48 of the Partnership Act, which govern partnership formation, rights, and dissolution-related adjustments, read alongside Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, addressing challenges to arbitral awards. This framework is critical to determining whether an internal reallocation among co-owners triggers statutory registration requirements.
(B) The core legal principles are that a partnership is not a distinct legal entity, and its assets are owned in equity by the partners as tenants in common; upon dissolution, the distribution of assets among partners is a realization of their individual interests, not a transfer of property, and thus falls outside the purview of Section 17 of the Registration Act. An award merely allocating the existing shares of the partners does not create, transfer, or assign any new interest in immovable property, and a mere dispute regarding arbitrator misconduct is distinct from the validity of the asset distribution itself.
Facts of the case:
A four-member family partnership firm faced internal disputes, leading to arbitration. An award dated 2nd October, 1972 distributed the dissolved firm's residue assets among the partners based on their shares. Challenges were filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, alleging misconduct and non-compliance with Section 17 of the Registration Act. While the High Court exonerated the arbitrators, it held the award unenforceable due to the alleged registration defect, prompting these appeals.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the partnership firm lacks legal personality, and its assets are owned by the partners. The award in question was a mechanism for settling accounts and allocating the partners' respective shares of the residue, involving no transfer or assignment of title. Consequently, the distribution did not fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act, and the non-registration of the award was not a valid ground for denying its enforceability as a court order.
Issues:
Whether an arbitral award distributing residue assets of a dissolved partnership firm amongst the partners requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 to be enforceable?
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the partnership firm is not a separate legal entity and the distribution merely allocates the partners' existing shares in the assets with no transfer of ownership, the proceeding does not attract Section 17 of the Registration Act. The enforceability of the award as a rule of court is independent of registration requirements applicable to instruments transferring immovable property.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court judgment is set aside, the objections against the award are rejected, and the award is ordered to be made a rule of the Court.
Registration - The court applied the principle that an award distributing residue assets of a dissolved partnership firm does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act.
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.-These appeals involve a pure question of law as to whether an award by which residue assets of a partnership firm are distributed amongst the partners on dissolution of the partnership firm requires registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 ?
2. Briefly the facts are that a partnership firm was constituted comprising of four persons belonging to the same family. Disputes and differences arose between the partners which were ultimately referred to arbitration. The arbitrators made an award on 2nd October, 1972. The award was challenged by way of objections filed under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by some of the partners. The objection petition was contested by the other partners who prayed that the award be made a rule of the Court. The grounds of challenge to the award included misconduct on the part of the arbitrators as well as another ground that the award required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The trial Court accepted both the objections holding that there was misconduct on the part of the arbitrators as also that the award was required to be compulsorily registered and since it was not registered it was inadmissible in evidence. This decision of the trial court was challenged before the High Court by way of a Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court found that in the facts and circumstances of the case it could not be said that there was any legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrators. Thus the first ground of attack against the award was found to be unsustainable. However, the High Court accepted the finding of the trial Court on the second ground, that is, the award was required to be compulsorily registered. Since the award was unregistered, it could not be made a rule of the Court. Hence the present appeals.
3. We have carefully perused the award in question. By the award the arbitrators have distributed the assets of the dissolved firm between the partners in accordance with their respective shares in the partnership. The real question for consideration is whether such an award amounts to creation of or transfer of any fresh rights in movable or immovable properties so as to bring it within the ambit of Section 17 of the Registration Act? A perusal of the award shows that it is simply a case of distribution of assets of the dissolved firm amongst the partners themselves. A partnership firm is not an independent legal entity, the partners are the real owners of the assets of the partnership firm. Actually the firm name is only a compendious name given to the partnership for sake of convenience. The assets of the partnership belong to and are owned by the partners of the firm. So long as partnership continues each partner is interested in all the assets of the partnership firm as each partner is owner of the assets to the extent of his share in the partnership. On dissolution of the partnership firm, accounts are settled amongst the partners and the assets of the partnership are distributed amongst the partners as per their respective shares in the partnership firm. Thus, on dissolution of a partnership firm, the allotment of assets to individual partner is not a case of transfer of any assets of the firm. The assets which hereinbefore belonged to each partner, will after dissolution of the firm stand allotted to the partners individually. There is no transfer or assignment of ownership in any of the assets. This is the legal consequence of distribution of assets on dissolution of a partnership firm. The distribution of assets may be done either by way of an arbitration award or by mutual settlement between the partners themselves. The document which records the settlement in this case is an award which does not require registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act since the document does not transfer or assign interest in any asset. This question stands concluded by a decision of this Court in S.V. Chandra Pandian and Others vs. S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and others [(1993) 1 SCC 589]. This was also a case of distribution of assets of a dissolved firm by way of an award. This Court noticed that the award read as a whole made it clear that the arbitrators had confined themselves to the property belonging to the partnership firm and had scrupulously avoided other properties. While distributing the residue assets, the arbitrators allocated the properties to the partners. Section 48 of the Partnership Act was applied and the properties were allocated to the partners as per their share on the distribution of the residue. The award sought to distribute the assets of the partnership firm after settlement of accounts on dissolution. This Court took the view that the property falling to the share of the partner on distribution of the residue would naturally belong to him exclusively "but since in the eye of law it is money and not an immovable property there is no question of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act." It was further observed "...even if one looks at the award as allocating certain immovable property since there is no transfer, no partition or extinguishment of any right therein there is no question of application of Section 17(1) of the Registration Act." As observed in the above case, in the present case also we are satisfied that the award seeks to distribute the residue after settlement of accounts on dissolution, while distributing their residue the arbitrators allocated the properties to the partners. The award in such circumstances did not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents was unable to contest this legal preposition which stand concluded on the basis of the above mentioned decision of this Court, however, he sought to rely on an earlier decision of this Court in Ratan Lal Sharma vs. Purshottam Harit [(1974)1 SCC 671). The said decision was noticed by this Court in Pandian s case (supra) and was explained. The said case is clearly distinguishable. It need not detain us from concluding that the award in the present case did not require registration under Section 17(1) of the Registration Act. The appeals are accordingly allowed. The judgment of the High Court is hereby set aside. The result would be that the objections against the award dated 2nd October, 1972 stand rejected and the award is ordered to be made a rule of the Court. Decree to follow in terms of the award. Both the appeals stand disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed.
**************
Parallel Citations of other Journals ;
N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by LRs. & Anr. v. N. Gudu Sahib (Dead) & Ors., 2003(1) Supreme 921 : 2003(1) JT 640 : 2003(1) CCC 187 : 2003(2) ACE 120 : (2003) 3 SCC 229 : 2003(1) Arb. L.R. 647 : 2003(261) ITR 1 : 2003(2) Civ. L.J. 504 : 2003 (129) Taxman 597 : 2003(2) UJ (SC) 826 : 2003 (175) Taxation 431: AIR 2003 SC 1524 : 2003(3) SBR 1.
00029