NIRMALJIT SINGH Vs. HARNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE property of one Dewan Singh, a common ancestor of the appellants and the respondents, is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal. A genealogy table showing the relationship between the appellants and the respondents is given below :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_610_8_1996Image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) DEWAN Singh left behind four sons, Rattan Singh, Kapoor Singh, Boor Singh and Gurdit Singh. In 1926, one of the sons of DEWAN Singh, namely, Boor Singh filed a suit for partition in respect of the houses and mansion left by DEWAN Singh including a house known as 'Haveli DEWAN Singh Wali' at Phagwara, in the Court of the Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Phagwara, Kapurthala State. His brothers Gurdit Singh, Kapoor Singh and Dalip Singh S/o of his deceased brother Rattan Singh were all parties to this suit. In this suit, a reference was made to arbitration. The reference to arbitration is signed by Boor Singh's branch consisting of his four sons. Karan Singh, Harnam Singh, Balbir Singh and Amrik Singh. Amrik Singh being a minor. Harnam Singh has signed as the guardian of Amrik Singh, Boor Singh presumably was not alive by this time. The reference to arbitration is also signed by Boor Singh's brother Kapoor Singh, Dalip Singh S/o. Boor Singh's brother Rattan Singh and Balwant Singh S/o. Boor Singh's brother Gurdit Singh, Gurdit Singh also presumably having passed away. Gurdit Singh had also left behind another son Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh, however, did not contest the suit and claimed no share in the property in question. It is submitted by the appellants that Harbans Singh was given in adoption to his maternal uncle and was, therefore, not interested in any property coming to the share of his natural father Gurdit Singh. Harbans Singh was not a party to the reference. The Arbitrator proceeded with the reference and gave his award which was filed in Court. A decree in terms of this award was passed by the Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Phagwara, Kapurthala State, on 19 Paus 1987, that is to say, some time in the year 1930.

(3.) THERE is no merit in this contention. If at all anyone could have challenged the award, it was Harbans Singh. Harbans Singh has not challenged the arbitration award or the decree passed in terms thereof. The persons who are challenging this award and the decree in terms of this award are the two sons of Boor Singh and the heirs and legal representatives of Balbir Singh, another son of Boor Singh. These three sons of Boor Singh were parties to the reference to arbitration and were also defendants to the suit. The decree which has been passed in terms of the award is binding on them. Neither Harbans Singh nor his son Shivjit Singh, who is defendant No.2 in the present suit, has challenged the award or the decree. Hence, the decree passed in the earlier suit cannot be disowned by the respondents original plaintiffs on the ground that Harbans Singh was not a party to the arbitration proceedings.