JUDGMENT V. K. Singal, J. - The controversy in the present case is with regard to the non registration of the award by the Sub-Registrar, Jhunjhunu. 2. In this matter 11 persons were appointed as Arbitrators by the agreement dated 20.8.1991 and the award itself was passed on the same date. Since the award pertained to the immovable property of which the dispute was between the parties. The Arbitrators submitted the same for registration before the Sub-Registrar. 3. The Inspector General of Registration and Stamps vide his letter dated 22.11.1991 opined that the document in dispute is a partition deed and therefore it could be registered as partition deed. The Sub-Registrar thereafter on 29-11-1991 directed that the document could be registered as a partition deed for which it is necessary that the consent of both the parties should be there and therefore the registration may be done after the parties appear. 4. In this writ petition it is submitted that there is no requirement of signatures of the parties on the arbitration award and before making the rule of the court it is necessary that it should be registered. Reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Ratan Lal v. Purshottam ( AIR 1974 SC 1066 ), in which it was observed that the award in respect of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100/- requires registration. It was also observed that it purports to create right in immovable property worth above Rs. 100/- and if it is un-registered it could not be looked into. If the court cannot look into it then the judgment in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 cannot be pronounced and before the award could be looked into validity by the court, registered is necessary. 5. I have considered over the matter. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act provides that where the Arbitrators to Umpire have made their award, the shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. 5. I have considered over the matter. Section 14 of the Arbitration Act provides that where the Arbitrators to Umpire have made their award, the shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof and of the amount of fees and charges payable in respect of the arbitration and award. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 contemplates that the Arbitrators or Umpire shall at the request of any party to the arbitration apparent or any person claiming under such party or if so directed by the court and upon payment of the fees and charges due in respect of the arbitration and award and of the costs and charges of the filing the award, cause the award or a signed copy of it together with any depositions and documents which may have been taken and proved before them to be filed in court and the court shall there upon give notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The aforesaid provisions contemplated notice to the parties at two stages, (i) when the award itself is made by the Arbitrators, the parties are to be informed, and (ii) when it is made the rule of the court, the court has to issue notice to them. If the notice has not been given by the Arbitrators then other party has a right to challenge. At the stage or registration of the award the validity, correctness of otherwise is not a subject-matter of dispute before the Sub-Registrar nor it confers a right on any party on account of registration. It is in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Ratanlal (supra) that before making the rule of the court it has to be registered where it pertains to immovable property valuing more than Rs. 100/-. The provisions of Section 2(15) of Indian stamps Act define the Instrument of partition' which means any instrument whereby co-owner of any property divide or agree to divide such property in severally, and includes also a final order for effecting a partition passed and an award by an Arbitrator directing a partition. From the above definition it is evident that even an award by an Arbitrator directing a partition is considered to be an instrument of partition. 6. From the above definition it is evident that even an award by an Arbitrator directing a partition is considered to be an instrument of partition. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the award, direction has already been given. It is not even disputed by him that the stamp duty payable on the instrument of partition is not to be paid and it is stated that the said stamp duty has already been paid. It is stated that the duty according to law has to be paid for which there is no objection on side of the petitioner. 7. Before making the award rule of the court, the court itself could have given the direction for registration of the award. The Arbitrators themselves have moved for registration and in such a situation the proper course for the Sub-Registrar was to register the award without insisting the signature of both the parties. It is not necessary that the award must contain the signature of both the parties as consenting parties. The party may differ with the award and have a right to challenge the same. The bindingness of the award could be only after it is made the rule of the court. 8. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The Sub-Registrar is directed to register the document as instrument of partition. If due stamp duty has not been paid, the same may be realised. After the registration the parties would be free to move to the Arbitrators for moving the court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act to make it a rule of the court. It is also made clear that the registration of the award will not confer right on any party and it would be binding only after it is made rule of the court. Writ Petition allowed.