CHANDER NATH OJHA JAIPUR Vs. SURESH JHALANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26/02/1991 of a learned single Judge of the Rajasthan High court dismissing the appeal of the appellant filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short the 'act'). District Judge, Jaipur, by his judgment on a petition filed by the first respondent against the appellant herein and respondents 2 and 3, under Section 20 of the Act, had directed that disputes arising out of the sale agreement dated 28/02/1992, which contained an arbitration clause, be referred to arbitration. Appellant had opposed the petition saying that he was not a party to the sale agreement and as such he could not have been entered into any arbitration agreement to submit any dispute under the sale agreement to arbitration. His contention was not accepted by the District Judge. High court by the impugned judgment also refused to interfere. Aggrieved the appellant has come to this court.

(2.) To understand the controversy between the parties it is necessary to refer to a few facts.

(3.) An agreement to sell certain property was entered into between the first respondent as purchaser and respondents 2 and 3 as vendors. In the agreement it was mentioned that the property to be sold is a property belonging to a Hindu Undivided Family consisting of the second respondent as Karta and the appellant and the third respondent being the two sons of the second respondent, in all three constituting the Hindu Undivided Family. It is not necessary for us to refer to various terms of the agreement of sale which is dated 28/02/1982 except to note that it was signed by the second and third respondents only. The agreement ends with paragraph 25 which wequote hereunder:-