(Now Major) Ashok Kshyap Vs. Mrs. Sudha Vasisht & Anr  INSC 34 (4 February 1987)
Sabyasachi (J) Mukharji, Sabyasachi (J) Natrajan, S. (J)
1987 AIR 841 1987 SCR (2) 151 1987 SCC (1) 717 JT 1987 (1) 350 1987 SCALE
Act, 1908: s. 17(1)(b)--Arbitration award--Not creating any right of effecting
partition in immovable property-Whether required to be registered.
Act, 1940: ss. 15(b), 16(1)(c) and 17--Unregistered award--Whether imperfect in
form--Whether could be made a rule of the Court--Legality of the award not
challenged--Whether could be remitted to the Arbitrator.
of India: Article 136--Jurisdiction of the
Court-To protect interests of all parties.
family dispute between the parties pertaining to movable and immovable property
left intestate by their father was referred by them to arbitration. The award
made on February 12,
that the appellant should pay to the 1st respondent a specified sum, on payment
of which she will have no right to live in the house and also have no other
interests in the said property as a legal heir;
that till the full amount was paid she would be entitled to live in the portion
of the house in her occupation and not be liable to pay any rent;
the 2nd respondent shall have right of residence in the said house. plus right
to receive from the appellant a specified sum per month as maintenance for life
or till she is married; and
in case of her marriage the appellant should pay her the specified sum upon
which she will have no right to live in the house or get any maintenance. The
aforesaid award was filed in court on March 10, 1977 and accepted by the appellant and
the 2nd respondent on May
first respondent filed her objection to the award on October 1977 on two
grounds: (i) that being unregistered it was incapable of being made the rule of
the court in terms of s. 17 of the Arbitration Act, and (ii) that the second
respondent being mentally retarded could not be a party to the arbitration
proceedings. The High Court upheld the first objection but not the second.
this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellant that even if
the award was not properly registered as required under s. 17 of the
Registration Act, in view of the fact that it was filed within a period of one
month of its making and since four months time was there to have the award
registered by the arbitrator the court should have exercised its powers under
s. 15(b) and s. 16(1)(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. For the first respondent
it was contended that the award effected partition of immovable property and
having not been registered it could not be made a rule of the court.
1.1 The award did not create any right in any immovable property,. nor did it
effect partition in any immovable property. It was, therefore, not compulsory
to register the award. [162G]
The award merely indicated the entitlement of the respondent in the property
and the cessor of their interest in the property on receipt of money. Their
right and interest was to cease only on the payment of the amount and not
otherwise, not even by the operation of the document itself. [161B-C]
The award only declared that the right of the appellant to get the immovable
property was dependent upon the payment of the amount by him. A right to the
property was not created by the award itself, a right to certain property was
declared. A right to get the property was declared on the payment of the money.
The award did not create any right to the property, extinguish any right to the
property, which was not there. It quantified in terms of money the value of
that right and declared the method of working out those rights. [162D-E] Rajangam
Ayyar v. Rajangam Ayyar, AIR 1922 Privy Council p. 266; Upendra Nath Bose v. Lall
and Others, AIR 1940, Privy Council p. 222; Sheonarain Lal v. Rameshwari Devi
and another, Civil Appeal No. 296 of 1960 decided on 6.12.1962;
Kumar & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar & Ors.,  2 SCR p. 244 and Ratan Lal
Sharma v. Purshottam Harit,  3 SCR p. 109, referred to.
purpose of remitting the award under s. 16(D(c) of the Arbitration Act is to
enable the arbitrator to reconsider his decision where legality was connected
with the decision as contained in the award. It must not relate to a matter
which has no connection with the decision or decree.
160A] 153 In the instant case, there was no objection to the legality of the
award. The factum of registration of the award did not pertain to the decision
of the arbitration on its merits and was de hors the award and for this purpose
the award could not be remitted to the arbitrator under s. 16 of the Act.
[159F-G] Rikhabdass v. Ballabhdas and others.,  suppl. 1 SCR 475 and Nani
Bala Saha v. Ram Gopal Saha and another, AIR (32) 1945 Calcutta 19, referred to.
award was not imperfect in terms of s. 15(b) of the Arbitration Act. There was,
therefore, no scope in the facts and circumstances of the case, of exercising
its powers by the High Court under s. 15 of the Act. Powers under s. 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure could also not be exercised in this case. [160A-B]
could not be said that the 2nd respondent was mentally incapable. Though she
was not of a very cheerful disposition, she was understanding what was
happening in this court. She knew what was good and what was bad for her, and
had accepted the award with a free will. She could perform her duties satisfactorily,
intelligently and socially. She had consciously participated in the award
proceedings. She was never given any ECT treatment. She was never hospitalised.
an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution the Court must in the interests
of justice protect as far as practicable the interests of all the parties.
[163A] [Having regard to the present position of inflation and rise in price of
life and living, the 2nd respondent will be entitled to a monthly maintenance
of Rs.500 instead of Rs.350 and this sum would form a charge on the share
allotted to the appellant. In the contingencies mentioned in cls.(1) and (2) of
the award the first respondent would be paid Rs.75,000 instead of Rs.40,800.
Similarly, in the contingency mentioned in d.(4) the 2nd respondent would be
paid Rs.75,000 instead of Rs.40,800. The award as modified is made a rule of
the Court.] [163C-D]
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 314 of 1987.
the judgment and Order dated 16.5. 1986 of the Delhi High Court in Suit No. 234-A of 1977 154 S.K. Dholkia and
P.C. Kapur for the Appellant.
Ms. Lalitha Kohli and Pramod Dayal for the Respondents.
Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Special leave is
granted. The appeal arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of
Delhi dated 16th May,
1986 whereby the award
of the Arbitrator was adjudged incapable of being made rule of the court and no
decree in terms thereof was passed under section 17 of the Arbitration Act,
1940, (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The High Court, however, held that the
award was not liable to be set aside but only that it could not be made a rule
of the court.
order to appreciate the contentions urged, it is necessary to note few facts.
The father of the parties involved in the matter, Shri S. Lal, died; on 13th November, 1975 leaving behind him his two
daughters, Mrs. Sudha Vasisht and Miss Shail and Capt. (now Major) Ashok Kshyap,
the son. The wife of the said deceased Shri S. Lal predeceased him. Mrs. Sudha Vasisht
is the eldest child and Major Kshyap is the youngest, who is the son. Mrs. Sudha
Vasisht is married, Miss Shail is a spinster and Major Kshyap is also married.
The said S. Lal left only one immovable property, namely, premises No.F-4,
Green Park, New Delhi and some movables including about Rs.8,000 in the Punjab
National Bank, Green Park, New Delhi. It was claimed that Miss Shail was not
capable of managing her affairs. Indeed one of the objections against the award
was that Miss Shail who was the unmarried sister of Major Kshyap and Mrs. Sudha
Vasisht was of unsound mind and due to her mental incapacity the arbitration
agreement, arbitration proceedings and the resultant award were all bad in the
eye of law. The arbitration agreement was, however, signed by all the three
parties. It may be noted that disputes and differences arose between the
parties and arbitration agreement as entered into by the three parties to
settle these on 9th
June, 1976, soon after
the death of their-father, Shri S. Lal. The arbitration agreement recited that
their father died intestate leaving behind him premises No. F-4, Green Park-, New
Delhi and the sum of
Rs.8,000 in the Punjab National Bank. Further it was recited that disputes and
differences had arisen in between them with regard to the immovable as well as
movable property left by their father and Shri S. Lal died without making any
will and the parties were desirous' to get their disputes and differences 155
settled through arbitration to maintain family peace, harmony and goodwill
amongst themselves and to avoid unnecessary litigation by arriving at a
"family settlement" through arbitration. The agreement, thereafter
nominated and appointed one Shri D.C. Singhania, Advocate, as the arbitrator
and to enter upon reference and to decide all the disputes and differences
existing between them "pertaining to or relating to or in any manner
touching upon the matter of inheritance and/or division of all movable and
immovable property left behind by their late father, Shri S. Lal. The
agreement, further recited that the parties undertook that the decision given
by the arbitrator would be accepted as' final. The arbitration proceedings have
been filed before this Court. The son, the appellant gave evidence and stated
that two houses, one at Meerut and one at Hapur were inherited by
him from his mother Smt. Sarla Devi, which she got from her parents without
leaving any male issue behind them.
houses were sold for Rs.21,000 which sum according to Major Kshyap was invested
by the father in the construction of the house in question. Major Kshyap
further claimed that he had invested a further amount of Rs. 10,000 out of his
savings of his service as a Commissioned Officer. This amount, according to him;
was spent on wood work, painting of two rooms etc. The father, Shri. S. Lal was
a teacher in a school and in order to realise his pension, according to Major Kshyap,
he paid to his father a sum of Rs.4440.93 which the father had drawn to build
the house. Major Kshyap further claimed that he had purchased a geyser for
Rs.887 and he had spent certain amount of money for certain other expenses.
Mrs. Sudha Vasisht gave evidence stating that her father died without making
any will and she was entitled to 1/3rd share in the house left behind him. Miss
Shail deposed before the arbitrator that during her life time, she was not to
be financially dependent upon anybody but after her death, her share in the
house should go to her brother. She further asserted that she always wanted
that the complete house should go to her brother. It is not necessary to give
the break-up of the expenses of the houses as appearing from the evidence. All
the parties agreed, the arbitrator noted that there could be no exact and
feasible division of the house. Mrs. Sudha expressed her desire that if she was
given a fair share in money, she would not insist for the division of the
house, according to the arbitrator. Her other alternative suggestion was that
the house has got 10 rooms or nine rooms in the sense that one big room on Barsati
floor has been divided in two and as such each person could be given three
rooms each. According to Miss Shail, the division of the house was not at all
feasible, since there was a lot of bad blood and differences between the
parties. According to her, the deposition states, it is not at all in the
interest of anybody that all should live in one house.
The other important thing to note in the arbitration proceedings was that Capt.
Kshyap stated that the house could not possibly be divided into three parts. It
did not have three kitchens. Miss Shail stated that if the house was divided
into three parts, there would aIways be quarrels and disputes among them. She
could not say whether the house could be divided into three parts or not. Miss Shail
further stated that she would like to live with her brother Capt.
or whatever arrangement he made for her, that would be acceptable to her. Mrs. Sudha
Vasisht stated that she would not like to live or associate with Miss Shail in
any manner. Miss Shail further stated that her share of the property, if any,
might be allotted to her brother or whatever otherwise considered proper.
further noted that according to Major Kshyap, the house could not be divided in
three parts. He would not like to share it with his sister, Mrs. Sudha Vasisht
who is now married. He further stated, at that time in the deposition that he
still had to serve in the army for about another 21 years. He was prepared to
have his share in the property in cash also. He further asserted that he wanted
to keep and maintain his sister Miss Shail. He further asserted that he was
also prepared to pay his sister Mrs. Sudha Vasisht in cash whatever share was
considered to be due and payable to her. According to him, he was not in a
position to pay both of his sisters in cash for their shares in the property.
But he could pay her sister Shail, her share in cash gradually.
Vasisht stated that she was not in a position to pay the share either of her
brother or her sister Miss Shail in cash. She further stated, she had no money
nor any arrangement for the same.
this narration is necessary in order to judge whether the award was just and
fair because a contention was advanced about the mental capacity of the
unmarried sister Miss Shail. The award made on 12th February, 1977, stated that the appellant should pay Rs.40,800 to
Mrs. Sudha Vasisht and upon payment Mrs. Sudha Vasisht would vacate the house.
In view of the contentions raised, it is necessary to set out the relevant part
of the award which is as follows:
THEREFORE, I hereby make and publish my award as follows:
Capt. A. Kshyap, shall pay an amount of Rs.40,800 to Mrs. Sudha Vasisht by way
of her share in the said property No. F.4, Green Park and other assets left
behind 157 by late Shri S. Lal and on payment of this full amount she shall
vacate the house.
Mrs. Sudha Vasisht shall be entitled to live in the portion of the house
already in her occupation till the full amount of Rs.40,800 has been paid to
her and she will also not be liable to pay any rent for occupation of the
portion of the house so far occupied by her and further until the total amount
of Rs.40,800 is paid to her by Capt. A. Kshyap.
payment of this amount she will have no right to live in the house and also
have no other interests left in the said property as legal heir of Shri S. Lal.
Miss Shail shall have a right of residence in the said house, i.e.-F-4, Green
Park throughout her life or till she iS married and in addition to her right in
residence in the house, Capt. Kshyap shall also pay her an amount of Rs.350 per
month for her maintenance till she is married.
case Miss Shail is married, Capt.
shall pay her a lumpsum amount of Rs.40,800 and thereafter she will also have
no right to live in the house or get any maintenance from Capt. Kshyap on full
payment of said amount.
Capt. A. Kshyap shall be liable to pay all the outstanding amount of loan along
with interest due thereon taken by late Shri S. Lal from L.I.C. and also bear
Estate Duty, if any, already paid or to be payable with regard to the movable
and immovable assets left behind by Shri S. Lal. He shall also be entitled to
have all other movable and immovable assets including withdrawal of an amount
of about Rs.8500 or so, along with interest if any due thereon, lying deposited
to the credit of late Shri Lal in Punjab National Bank, Green Park." The
award was filed by the Arbitrator on th March, 1977.
respondent no. 1 filed objections to the same on 11th October, 1977. Major Kshyap
and Miss Shail accepted the award before the Deputy Registrar, Delhi High Court
on 11th May, 1977. This position is stated in the petition for special leave
and this is not denied in the affidavit 158 filed on' behalf of Mrs. Sudha Vasisht.
Mrs. Sudha Vasisht filed an objection on two grounds, namely, that the award
being' unregistered could not be made a rule of the court and the other Miss Shail
being mentally retarded could not be' a party to the arbitration proceedings.
The' High Court rejected the contention about the invalidity of the Award on'
the ground of mental capacity of Miss Shail but held that the award could not
be made rule of the court because it was an unregistered Award.
view of the submission made on behalf of the respondent that Miss Shail was of
unsound mind and as this contention was advanced before us in support of the
order of the High' COurt, we may briefly deal with it. We have gone through the
evidence considered by the learned judge about the mental capacity of Miss Shail.
It is an unfortunatecase of border line intellectual retardation which' was one
part of the diagnosis in respect of her and on the other hand the arbitrator
had noted that Major Kshyap had come into the witness box and he had also
examined one' Brig. Dr. Sangat Singh Syalee who is a medical practitioner. The
testimony of Capt. Kshyap showed that the arbitration agreement was executed in
the office of the arbitrator and that the arbitration proceedings used to be
attended by himself, Miss Shail, Mrs. Sudha Vasisht and her husband, and the
proceedings used to be signed by all the parties. He had further stated that
Miss Shail's case was of border line mental retardation but she could perform her
duties satisfactorily, intelligently and socially and she knew what was good
and what was bad for her. She had been living all alone in house F-4, Green, Park
from 1977 to 1980 and had been doing everything for herself. It is true that
story of this spinster living alone in Green Park house in Delhi belonging to
her late father, does not make pleasant reading, yet from the evidence which
the learned judge has exhaustively examined, he found that the medical record
obtained from the All India Institute of Medical sciences indicated that Miss Shail
was suffering from schizophrenia and even in the year 1974-1981 she was
suffering from mental retardation. But the arbitrator noted that Miss Shail was
never given any ECT treatment. She was never hospitalised and Mrs. Vasisht did
not at any point of time objected to the arbitration because of Miss Shail's
arbitrator expressed his opinion that the objection against the mental capacity
of Miss Shail during the period from 9th June, 1976 to 12th February, 1977
could not be accepted.
note that before us all the parties were present.
asked counsel for Miss Shail to ascertain from her whether she 159 accepted the
award with a free will? We did so not because we found any defect in the
evidence or in the order of the learned judge of the High Court but being an
appeal under' article 136 of the Constitution even if there was no legal
material in these aspects, the court was entitled to be Satisfied. Though it is
difficult to hazard an opinion on the mental Capacity of a lady by her looks,
it appeared to Us that though she was not of a very cheerful disposition, it
would perhaps be unfair to conclude that she was mentally incapable. We watched
her manner during the time the proceedings were going on in the court and
observed that she Was understanding what was happening in the court. We have
not any material to disagree with the views of the learned judge on this
aspect. Therefore, we cannot accept this submission urged on behalf of respondent
no. 1, Mrs. Vasisht about the mental capacity of Miss Shail.
High Court noted that apart from the question of registration and the question
of mental Capacity, no other contentions Were raised. ......
the only other question is, was this award bad having not been registered under
the law under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908? Before we deal with
that point, we might record that a submission was made that even if the award
was not properly registered as required under section 17 of the Registration
Act, in view of the' facts and circumstances of the case and further in view of
the facts that the award was filed within a period of one month of making of
the award and further in view of the 'fact that four months' time was there to
have the award registered by the arbitrator when the award came to the court
from the date of making of the award the court should have exercised its powers
under section 15(b) and under section 16(1).(c), of the Act. We are unable to
accept the submission urged on behalf of the appellant in this behalf. Section
16 of the Act, we are of the opinion, does not apply to the facts of this case,
There is no objection to the legality of the award apparantly, We are in
agreement with the views expressed by the learned judge on this aspect. The factum
of registration of the award does not pertain to the decision of the arbitrator
on its merits and is de bors the award and for this purpose the award can not
be remitted to the arbitrator under section 16 of the Act. The principles
enunciated by this Court in Rikhabdass v. Ballabhdas and others,  Suppl.
1 SCR 475 are applicable to the. facts of this case The purpose of remitting
the award is to enable the arbitrator to reconsider the decision where the
legality was connected with the decision as contained in the award.It must not
relate to a matter which has 160 no connection with the decision or decree. See
in this connection the observations of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Nani
Bain Saha v. Ram Gopal Saha and another, AIR 32 1945 Calcutta 19. The award is
also not imperfect in terms of section 15(b) of the Act as rightly held by the
High Court. Therefore, in our opinion, there was no scope, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, of exercising its powers by the High Court under
section 15 of the Act and powers under section 15 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure could also not be exercised in this case. The objection against the
award was filed by Mrs. Sudha Vasisht on 11th October, 1977 after that more
than eight months have expired and there was no prayer to the court to extend
the time for registration.
main contention, however, that requires consideration is whether the award
could not be made a rule of the court because it affects the partition of
immovable property and affects rights in immovable property. We are of the
opinion that the High Court was not right in the view it took on this aspect of
the matter. The document in question did not effect the partition if read
17(1)(b) of the Registration Act enjoins that any nontestamentary instrument
which purports or operates to create, declare, assign, 'limit or extinguish,
whether in present or in future, any fight, title or interest, whether vested
or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in
immovable property should be registered.
the question is, does the document itself extinguish or purports to create or
declare any right in immovable property. It certainly declares the share of the
parties in the property but. it enjoins that only upon payment of Rs.40,800
Mrs. Vasisht would vacate the house. It further enjoins that "she will be
entitled to live in the house in the portion occupied by her till the full
payment of Rs.40,800 is made to her and she will not be liable to pay any rent
for the occupation of the portion and on the said payment, she will not have
any right and also no interest left in the said property". So her right in
the said property and her interest in the property ceases on payment of the
amount of Rs.40,800 and not otherwise not by the operation of document itself.
The document itself creates a right by itself to get Rs.40,800 and right to
obtain the payment and on payment the obligation or relinquishment of her right
or interest in the property. It does nothing more.
similar position arose before the Judicial Committee in the case of Rajangara Ayyar
v. Rajangam Ayyar, AIR 1922 Privy Council 161 p. 266 where dealing with the
document of similar nature the Judicial Committee observed that that document
was not a document by itself creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or
extinguishing any fight, title or interest in the immovable property. It merely
creates a right to obtain another document which will, when executed, create a
right in the person claiming the relief. There was a memorandum of agreement
which specified the shares and provided for a further deed effectuating the
partition. It was held that it did not require to be registered. In our
opinion, the entitlement of the members namely Miss Shail as well as Mrs. Vasisht
in the property and the cessor of interest in the properties on payment of the
money in case of Mrs. Vasisht and other conditions in case of Miss Shail were
indicated in the Award.
position was again reiterated by the Judicial Committee in Upendra Nath Bose v.
Lall and Others, AIR 1940, Privy Council p. 222. There the document recited
that the ownership of the second party in one half of the Raitar would not come
till after the payment of a sum of Rupees sixty one thousand and four hundred
as well as the amounts mentioned in the statement exhibit B together with
interest specified in respect of both be fully paid up. The question before the
Judicial Committee was whether the last sentence of para 2 of the Award
purported to confer upon "the second party" a right, title or
interest which commenced with the Award and came to an end when the sum of
Rs.61,400 with interest was paid or whether it intended merely to provide that
the interest which arose from the exercise of the option should remain
unaltered until Rs.61,400 and interest had been paid or whether they intended
merely to provide that the status quo should remain unaltered (i.e. the
contractual interest which arose from the exercise of the option) would remain
unaltered until Rs.61,400 and interest had been paid. The Judicial Committee
was of the view that the latter was the true view. The sentence was not framed
as one which purports to create or confer any interest. This Court in the
unreported judgment which is in the Supreme Court judgments 1962, in the case
of Sheonarain Lal v. Ratneshwari Devi and another (Civil Appeal No. 296 of
1960) had also to deal with a similar situation. There fifth clause of the
Award was as follows:
Sheo Narain Lal and his heirs should execute as early as possible a registered
document in respect of the shop let out on rent to Beli Sao Sukhdeo Prasad, in favour
of Shri Prabhu Chand for which Shri Prabhu Chand will have to pay nothing as
consideration. He will pay only costs of stamp etc." 162 This Court had to
deal with this clause and to consider the question whether this clause
purported or created or declared or assigned, limited or extinguished any
right. This Court held that the award merely provided that some right could be
created in future by means of a document to be executed. Therefore, this Court
was of the view that it did not require registration. We are of the opinion
that the same principle should be applicable here, Two decisions upon which
reliance was placed by the High Court to which our attention was drawn by the
learned counsel, firstly, Satish Kurnar & Ors. v. Surinder Kumar &
Ors.,  2 SCR p. 244 and the second one was Ratan Lal Sharma v. Purshottam
Harit,  3 SCR p. 109 do not help the respondent. 1n the first case Hegde,
J. observed that for the purpose of section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act,
it was necessary to determine whether the Award purported to create rights in
the immovable property. If it did, it was necessary to have it registered. As
it was found by the court that it did, it needed compulsory registration. But
the facts of this case are entirely different. Here the award did not create
right to get the money, the award only declared that the rights to get the
immovable property was dependent upon the payment of the amount. A right to the
property was not created by the award itself, a right to certain property was
declared. A right to get the property was declared on the payment of the money.
The award did not create any right to the property to extinguish any right to
the property, which was not there. It quantified in terms of money the value of
that right and declared the method of working out those rights.
second case, the question was whether assignment of the share in the
partnership required registration? The share of partner in the partnership
which has also immovable property is movable property and assignment of that
share did not require registration under section 17 of the Registration Act.
But the award in that case expressly made an exclusive allottment of the
partnership assets including factory and liabilities over Rs., 100 to the
appellant in that case. It went further and made the appellant absolutely
entitled to the same. That is not the position in the instant case. In that
view of the matter, though there is no dispute about the propositions, these
two decisions would be applicable to the facts of the instant case, we are of
the opinion on an analysis of award that it did not create any right in any
immovable property and as such it was not compulsory to register it.
the ,above should be sufficient to dispose of the order as 163 it iS an appeal
under Article 136 of the Constitution, we should see in the interest of justice
to the interest of all the parties and we must protect as far as practicable
the interests of all the parties. A submission was made on behalf of Miss Shail
that Rs.350 per month which has been fixed for the maintenance to be paid by
Major Kshyap was inadequate. It was further submitted that Rs.40,800 which was
the share of the money to be allotted to either Mrs. Vasisht and also to Miss Shail
for getting their relinqhishment of their property in the event mentioned in
the award is also not proper.
of the present position of inflation and rise in price of life and living, we
are of the opinion that so far as Miss Shail is concerned, we would dismiss
this appeal with the directions that she will be titled to a monthly
maintenance of Rs.500 instead of Rs.350 and that this sum should form a charge
on the share allotted to Major Kshyap.
we direct that in the contingencies mentioned in clauses (1) and (2) of the
Award, Mrs. Vasisht should be paid Rs.75.000 instead of Rs.40,800. Similarly in
the contingency mentioned in clause (4) of the Award, Miss Shail should be paid
Rs.75,000 instead of Rs.40,800. The appeal is allowed and the award as modified
with the aforesaid direction is made a rule of the court.
facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own
costs except that the cost on behalf of Miss Shail should be paid by Major Kshyap.