VAIDYA HARISHANKAR LAXMIRAM RAJYAGURU Vs. PRATAPRAY HARISHANKAR RAJYAGURU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is saddening to start with the introduction of parties and the back drop of circumstances in which this Revision Application has come up for final hearing before me.

(2.) The petitioner Vaidya Harishankar Laxmiram Rajyaguru is the father of respondent Pratapray Harishankar Rajyaguru Respondent is the son of the petitioner. Both of them are established Vaidyas in Rajkot. It is a well-to-do family. Both of them and particularly the petitioner are advanced in age. They have been fighting between themselves since more than a decade. I was therefore very eager to see that the matter was amicably settled between them I called both of them before me and intervened in every small item of their dispute to see that once again they may have a real relationship of father and son between them. At one stage I was hopeful that my sincere attempts may succeed but in the end my attempts failed as both of them could not see eye to eye with each other both literally and figuratively. They broke the negotiations for compromise before me on an issue relating to their residential house. I still waited in the hope that they may go back to Rajkot ponder over their disputes to consider settling the same amicably once and for all having regard to the higher values of family relationship and peace in the family. My hope is belied by their adamantine attitude. I therefore now proceed to dispose of this Civil Revision Application on merits.

(3.) The petitioner and the respondent referred their disputes to one Kantibhai Vaidya (Shri Kantilal Dayaram Jani) who had intervened between them with the good intention to bring their disputes to an end. A copy of the award passed by Shri Kantibhai Vaidya is produced on record. It is stated in the award by the Arbitrator that he had called both father and son at his residence on 18-1-1977 at 9-00 p.m. He had discussed the matter with both of them and had warned them that both of them would ruin themselves in the property disputes if they were not solved amicably. It is specifically mentioned in the award that the entire responsibility of salving the disputes was entrusted to him by the petitioner father and the respondent had agreed to such entrustment. Accordingly he had given an award on 18-1-1977. Below the award both the parties and the Arbitrator have signed. The endorsement reads when translated in English that the award is agreed to and binding to both the parties and that the entire responsibility of the arbitration will lie on Shri Kantibhai Vaidya which responsibility Shri Kantibhai Vaidya has undertaken. It is also stated that both of them have signed the endorsement below the award reading and fully understanding it. One would have hoped that the matter should have ended at that stage. The disputes were entrusted by them to their family friend Shri Kantibhai Vaidya. Shri Kantibhai Vaidya had undertaken the responsibility of giving an award with the good intention of bringing the family-feud to an end. It is a silverlining in the cloud that neither of them has questioned the 60na fides of the Arbitrator all throughout this protracted litigation.