Sharma, J.—This is an application by the defendants Surajmal and three others to revise the order of the Civil Judge, Sambhar, dated the 13th of September, 1950, holding a document purporting to be an award partly admissible and partly inadmissible for want of registration. The lower court, after considering the various terms of the award, came to the conclusion that terms Nos. 3 to 7 created certain rights in favour of the plaintiff and limited certain rights of the defendants over immovable property, i.e., the land which lay adjacent to the house of the plaintiff towards the south. 2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicants that none of the said terms either created any right in favour of the plaintiff or limited any right of the defendants over the land in question. At the most it conferred upon the plaintiff a chance of acquiring certain rights of easement for which no registration was necessary. 3. On behalf of the opposite party it has been argued as a preliminary ground that no revision lay in the circumstances of the case. It was further argued that the terms Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the document created certain rights over the land in favour of the plaintiff, and limited certain rights of the defendants. It was argued that the fact that the defendants were ordained not to make any constructions within 9" from the house of the plaintiff in certain places, and within 2 or 3 feet in others under term No. 3 limited the right of the defendants to build on their own lands wherever they thought proper. Similarly, the right given to the plaintiff to keep an outlet for the clearing of his latrine towards the said land created a right in favour of the plaintiff, and the condition that the defendants would not be entitled to construct any latrine by putting up any todas towards this land limited the right of the defendants. Similarly, the condition in term No. 4 that the defendant would not be entitled to put up any todas or chhajas for opening any windows limited the right of the defendants. 4. The learned lower court considered all these arguments of both the parties and came to the conclusion that some of these terms created a right of way in favour of the plaintiff and limited certain rights of the defendant. 4. The learned lower court considered all these arguments of both the parties and came to the conclusion that some of these terms created a right of way in favour of the plaintiff and limited certain rights of the defendant. The conclusion to which the lower court has arrived may be legally right or wrong. It is not proper at this stage for me to say one thing or the other. All that I need say is that the finding of the lower court is based upon the consideration of the provisions of sec. 17 of the Registration Act, and it cannot be said that it totally ignored any legal provision. It cannot consequently be said that the lower court committed any illegality or any material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. 5. It cannot also be said that the lower court either failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in it or exercised a jurisdiction which was not vested in it. The lower court had a perfect jurisdiction to give a right or wrong decision on a question of law which was argued before it. The decision of the lower court might be challenged in the course of appeal, which might have to be filed by one party or the other after the suit is finally decided. No case for revision is made out at the present stage. 6. The preliminary objection succeeds and the application for revision is dismissed. The costs of this revision shall follow the result of the suit in the lower court.