JUDGMENT 1. This is an Appeal by the Defendants in a suit for declaration of title to immoveable property and for recovery of possession thereof. The subject-matter of the litigation originally formed part of joint properly held by the Plaintiff and his brother, the father of the Defendants. At the trial, the Plaintiff produced an unregistered private award which, he contended, conclusively established that the joint properties had been divided and that the disputed land had been allotted to his share. The Courts below have acted upon this award and founded their decision thereon, though it had not been previously enforced in Court, Bhajahari v. Behary Lal I. L. R. 33 Cal. 881 (1906). On the present appeal, it has been argued that the unregistered award was not admissible in evidence, because it was in essence a deed of partition and as such was compulsorily registrable under sec.17 (b) of the Indian Regis ration Act, 1877. It has also been contended that there is no evidence to show that two of the Defendants ever agreed to the arbitration. In so far as the first of these points is concerned, reliance has been placed by the Appellants upon the case of Upendra Nath v. Umesh 12 C. L. J. 25 (1910) to show that a partition deed is compulsorily registrable, if it affects title to the property of more than the statutory value. This has not been disputed by the Respondent. It has been argued, however, of their behalf that the instrument now before us, is an award and not a deed of partition, and that as an award, it is not compulsorily registrable as pointed out in Golab Singh v. Mohor Singh 7 P. L. R. 532. The determination of this question depends upon the construction of cl. (b) of sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1877, which lays down that decrees and orders of Court and awards are not compulsorily registrable. On behalf of the Appellants, it has been argued that the collocation of the words of this clause indicates that its application is restricted to awards filed in Court. This contention is not supported by the language used by the Legislature and is opposed to the decision of this Court in the case of Tarakant v. Rai Kishore 13 C. L. J. 158 (1910). If the term 'Award' was intended to be restricted in cl. This contention is not supported by the language used by the Legislature and is opposed to the decision of this Court in the case of Tarakant v. Rai Kishore 13 C. L. J. 158 (1910). If the term 'Award' was intended to be restricted in cl. (1) to awards which have been filed in Court, the provision for exclusion of awards would be needless, because if a proceeding has been taken in Court to enforce an award, such proceeding would terminate in a decree or order in which the award itself would be merged ; consequently, a provision to the effect that decrees and orders of Courts are not compulsorily registrable would completely cover the case in point. We are consequently not prepared to accept the interpretation put upon cl. (1) of sec. 17 by the learned Vakil for the Appellant. We are fortified in this view by an examination of the language of cl. (b) of sub-sec. 2 of sec. 17 of the Indian Registration Act of 1908. That clause now provides that any decree or order of a Court and any award is not compulsorily registrable; so that whatever doubt might have been possible as to the true meaning of the provision contained in the statute of 1887, that doubt has now been removed by the Legislature. We hold accordingly that the award in this case was not compulsorily registrable. We may add, however, that a document which purports to be an award may amount to something more than any award; if the parties to the reference affix their signatures to the award in token of their acceptance of the decision of the arbitrators, the award may thereupon become a deed of partition, and may as such become compulsorily registrable. The distinction between an award and a deed of partition to which we have just adverted, was explained by Mr. Justice West in the case of Amarsi v. Dayal I. L. R. 9 Bom. 50 (1884), and it was recognised in the cases of Ratan Chand v. Sitaram 1 P. L. R. 459 and Azmial Singh v. Kulwant 8 P. L. R. 534 ; 1906 P. P. R. 71. See also Bhagat Ram v. Paras Ram 1907 P. R. 84. The first contention of the Appellant must consequently be overruled. 2. As regards the second point, we are of opinion that it is entirely unsubstantial. See also Bhagat Ram v. Paras Ram 1907 P. R. 84. The first contention of the Appellant must consequently be overruled. 2. As regards the second point, we are of opinion that it is entirely unsubstantial. It does not appear from the proceedings in the Court below that any attempt was made by the second and the third Defendants to repudiate the award on the ground that the arbitrators had not been duly authorised by them to effect the partition On the other hand, they made common case with their eldest brother who was the head of their branch of the family, and we observe that the present appeal has been jointly preferred by all the three brothers. Under these circumstances, they cannot be allowed to raise a question of fact which was not really in controversy in the primary Court, though it may be conceded that the point was sought to be raised before the Judicial Commissioner. The result is that the decree of the Court of Appeal below is confirmed and this Appeal dismissed ; but there will be no order as to costs.