Short Note : 1. The material facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows: Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 filed an application for execution of a decree passed in COS No.8 A of 1971 against the appellant by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Ujjain, on 29th April 1972. The appellant objected to the execution of the decree on the ground that the decree was passed in a suit which was barred by the provisions of section 32 of the Arbitration Act. 1940. That objection was not upheld by the lower Court, and hence the appellant has preferred this appeal. Held: Having heard learned counsel for the parties. I have come to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the decree sought to be executed was a nullity as it was passed in a suit to enforce an award and that such a suit was barred by the provisions of section 32 of the Arbitration Act. It would, however, not be correct to state that the respondents had instituted a suit to enforce the award. On a perusal of the application submitted by them before the trial Court, it is clear that it was an application to make the award passed by the arbitrators in a dispute between them and the appellant a rule of the Court. The decree passed in terms of the award cannot be said to be a decree passed in a suit prohibited by law. 2. It was then contended that the decree, which was sought to be executed, was passed on the basis of an award which affected immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 and. was, therefore, compulsorily registrable. Learned counsel relied on Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 833 and contended that the decree passed by the trial Court was, therefore, a nullity and, in these circumstances, the executing Court could not execute that decree. In Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar, (supra), it has been held that an award, which affects immovable property exceeding the value of Rs.100, is compulsorily registerable under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and it cannot be admissible in evidence. In Satish Kumar v. Surinder Kumar, (supra), it has been held that an award, which affects immovable property exceeding the value of Rs.100, is compulsorily registerable under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, and it cannot be admissible in evidence. But the questions as to whether a decree passed on the basis of an award, which requires registration, can be held to be a nullity and whether the executing Court can refuse to execute that decree had come up for consideration in Moolchand v. Mangilal, 1965 JLJ 147 , and a Full Bench of this Court held that the decree, although it was in contravention of sections 17 (J) (b) and 49 of the Registration Act, could not be held to be one passed by a Court which had no jurisdiction and hence the executing Court could not refuse to execute the decree. That decision has been followed in Bansilal v. Nandlal, 1975 JLJ 138 . Learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any decision of the Supreme Court overruling the Full Bench decision of this Court in Moolchand v. Mangilal, 1965 JLJ 147 . In these circumstances, I am bound to follow the Full Bench decision and the objection raised to the executability of the decree on the ground that the award was not registered cannot be upheld. Appeal dismissed.