D SHAMANNA Vs. D GANGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from a decree and judgment dated 17-2-1966 made in RA.No.122 of 1965 by which the learned District Judge, Tumkur, has confirmed the decision of the Second Additional Munsiff, Tumkur, in OS. No.864 of 1960.

(2.) THE suit out of which ihe above appeal arises was instituted by the respondent for a declaration and injunction and alternatively for possession, inter alia, contending that he is the owner of the schedule property and that the defendant has no manner of right, title or interest in it. THE main contention of the defendant was that the dispute in respect of the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff was referred to a group of panchayatdars who have given their decision that the suit schedule property shall belong to the defendant and that that decision was asented to by the plaintiff. It was further contended that the reference and decision being admittedly after the filing of the suit, must be held to be binding on the plaintiff.

(3.) THE main contention of Sri V Krishna Murthy the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the decision of the arbitrators was consented to by the plaintiff and it can therefore be regarded as a compromise or adjustment of the suit falling squarely within Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC. He also relies upon the proviso to S.47 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.