JUDGMENT Bind Basni Prasad. J. 1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned Civil Judge of Saharanpur dismissing the judgment-debtor's objection that the application for the execution of the decree was premature. 2. The relevant facts are that the judgment-debtor appellant and his father, the respondent, and his uncles referred a dispute about the partition of their properly to arbitration. On the January. 9, 1947, an award was given whereby the property was divided among the members of the family; but, as the appellant was allotted the property which was in excess of his share, he was required to pay a sum of Rs 7.000, to his father, Trilok Chand, the respondent by way of compensation. He was allowed a period of six mouths for paying this sum and no interest was to run for this period. It was, however, provided that if he did not pay the sum within six months, then the appellant Would be liable to pay interest at the rate of six per cent per annum. The appellant's uncles moved the court u/s 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. for the filing of the award. On the November, 26,1947, the learned Civil Judge passed a decree in terms of the award. A certified copy of the decree is before us. The exact words in the decree are as follows; Let a decree be prepared according to the award u/s 17 of the Arbitration Act. Parties shall bear their costs. 3. On the March 29, 19, 48, the respondent applied for the recovery of Rs. 7,000 by the execution of the decree. The appellant objected and contended that the period of six months given by the award should be reckoned from the date of the decree, viz , the November, 26,1947, and not from the date of the award viz., the January, 9, 1947. Learned Civil Judge has held that the period should be counted from the date of the award and not from the date of the decree. The objection was, therefore, dismissed. 4. The judgment-debtor comes in appeal and contends that the period of six months should have been reckoned from the date of the decree. 5. There can be no doubt that it is the decree of the court which is under execution and not the award Which was given by the arbitrators. But what does the decree provide ? 4. The judgment-debtor comes in appeal and contends that the period of six months should have been reckoned from the date of the decree. 5. There can be no doubt that it is the decree of the court which is under execution and not the award Which was given by the arbitrators. But what does the decree provide ? The decree gives effect to the award. The award gives six months' time from the January, 9, l947. The decree confirms that provision of the award. Hence on the date the decree was pained the period of six months given to the appellant had already run out and there is no justification for presuming that by the decree the appellant was given any further time for the payment of Rs. 7,000- A valid award when once given by an arbitrator determines the rights and liabilities of the parties and if a party acts under it, it is not a wrongful act So long as an award is not made a rule of the court and a decree has not been passed on its basis it is not executable through court. Nevertheless, the validity of the award is not dependent upon its having been made a rule of the court. "When a decree is passed in terms of the award it receives an authentication by the court and becomes executable through court. It will be noticed that the Arbitration Act, 1940, does not make it mandatory upon an arbitrator to file in court each and every award. It becomes the duty of the arbitrator to file an award in court only when he is requested to this effect by any party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming under any such party or if he is so directed by the court. 6. We are of the opinion that the applications dated the March, 29, 1948, for the execution of the decree was not premature, The objection was rightly dismissed by the learned Civil Judge. 7. The appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed with costs.