Chaudhry ( 1 ) M/s. Gupta Sales Corporation was a partnership firm constituted by petitioner and respondents 1 to 4. The partners were carrying on the business of manufacturing of plastic goods etc. at A-106, Wazir Pur Industrial Area. Delhi. The partners dissolved the said firm w. e. f. 31st March 1984. There arose certain difficulties regarding distribution of the assets of the firm. Consequently by a deed of reference dated 4. 5. 1984 the partners appointed Shri Harish Kumar Sood, Advocate as the sole Arbitrator and referred the following matters to him for arbitration. (A) Distribution of assets of the firm-both movable and immovable. (b) To entrust the left-overs and pending jobs for realization of assets, collection of statutory sales tax forms and get the pending Income tax and Sales tax assessments completed ; (c) To decide the modalities with regard to payments amongst themselves, if any. ( 2 ) THE Arbitrator entered upon the reference and after conducting the arbitration proceedings gave and published his award on 24. 2. 1986. The petitioner filed this application under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act for directions to the Arbitrator to file the award a Rule of the Court. ( 3 ) THE Arbitrator in compliance of the directions issued by this court filed the award and the arbitrator proceedings. Notice of the filing of the award was given to all the parties. All the parties were duly served but none of them filed objections within the statutory period. The matter came up before the Court for consideration of the award when the counsel for the petitioner stated that the ward pertains to immovable properties also and had to be registered, Subsequently the counsel for the petitioner took the stand that he made the statement under some misapprehension of law and in fact the award does not require registration. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter involved. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mul Chand v. Dalam Chand AIR 1978 Cal 352 , Madiammal v. Glory Chandrakanthd, AIR 1977 Mad 209 , G. Ramappa and Others vs. Secy. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter involved. ( 5 ) THE Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mul Chand v. Dalam Chand AIR 1978 Cal 352 , Madiammal v. Glory Chandrakanthd, AIR 1977 Mad 209 , G. Ramappa and Others vs. Secy. to the Revenue Department and others, AIR 1959 A. P. 318, Ayodhya Pershad Ram Pershad v. Sham Sunder and Others, AIR 1947 Lah 13, Addanki Narayanappa and another v. Bhaskara Krishnappa and Others, AIR 1966 SC 1300 , and Rattan Lal v. Purshottam, AIR 1974 SC 10666. I have perused all these authorities. In view of the proposition laid down in these authorities I am of the opinion that the award does not require registration. This is not a case where the immovable property has been allotted to any partner in consideration of any amount. Only the allotment by adjustment dealing with the assets of the partnership firm has been done in the award. In my opinion it does not affect the immovable properties, but only the partners share in the firm which are movable properties. Consequently the petition is allowed. The award is made a Rule of the Court. Decree sheet in terms of the award drawn up.